Reflective Essay: Gilbane Gold Case Study
Being a professional comes with a lot of responsibility. Most of the decisions taken by professionals will not only affect them but also the people around them. By telling lies they can undermine their own integrity and loose people’s trust. Actions like using poor quality material and undertaking tasks that a person lacks training and experience to perform competently can jeopardize the safety of others. Hence it is imperative for professionals to be regulated by codes of professional ethics. ‘Professional ethics are professionally accepted standards of personal and business behaviour, values and guiding principles. Codes of professional ethics are often established by professional organizations to help guide members in performing their job functions according to sound and consistent ethical principles (BusinessDictionary.com, 2019). The aim of this paper is to analyse the Gilbane Gold ethical case study. The paper will draw upon guidelines by the Engineering Council of South Africa (ECSA) and further discuss the technical and economic issues of the case study. The Gilbane Gold case study is centred around the company Z CORP that manufactures computer components. The focus is on the toxic heavy metals discharged by Z CORP which result in contamination of the City’s sludge. The sludge is sold as a fertiliser product “Gilbane Gold” thus high levels of the toxic materials in the sludge will consequently poison the crops grown from this fertilizer.
There are several ethical issues that can be identified from this case study. The main ethical in the case study is whistle blowing. At the heart of the whistle blowing dilemma is David Jackson, the junior environmental engineer at Z CORP. David believes that he has exhausted his avenues within the company with regards to his concerns that they might be discharging higher levels of heavy metals into the city’s sewers than the city allows. David is conflicted because although he wants to do the morally right thing, he also fears that if he goes public there is a possibility of losing his job and his reputation might be at stake as other companies will be reluctant to hire a whistle blower. David is being heavily influenced by Tom Richards, an environmental engineering consultant who was fired Z CORP. There is a possibility that Tom might have ulterior motives as he was unreasonably fired. De George’s whistleblowing criteria shall be used to determine whether David has a moral obligation to blow the whistle. Criteria (1) states that “the harm that will be done by the company’s action to the public should be serious and considerable” (Tavani, 2016). However, it is difficult to conclude whether this is the case as there are other underlying technical and conceptual issues. According to Dr. Winslow Massin, a retired professor from Hanover University, school of engineering, at Z CORP’s current production levels, even if it were to be proved true that they are discharging above the municipal limits,” it would take a hundred-two hundred years before the accumulations would cause a problem” (SCRIPT FOR GILBANE GOLD, 1998).This also means that criteria (5) which states that “there must be strong evidence that making the information public will in fact prevent the threatened serious harm” (Tavani, 2016) cannot be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt .David’s situation does meets other criteria such as making sure his concerns are known to his superiors, he has done so by raising the issue to Phil Port, the manager and head of environmental affairs and further escalating to Diane Collins, the Z CORP vice president in charge of the Gilbane plant. However, David’s case still fails as a permissive or mandatory whistle blowing case as per De George. Alternative courses of actions shall be discussed.
Other ethical issues raised in this case study include the obligations that engineers have with respect to public interest and environmental issues as well as the relationship between law and morality. As an engineer David is bound by the ECSA code of ethics. He is always required to give priority to the health, safety and interests of the public. Also, in doing his work he must avoid or minimise, adverse impact on the environment. Thus, in his decision making on the best course of action David is constrained by these standards (Code of conduct for registered persons: Engineering profession Act,2000, 2017).Phil emphasises that they only do business strictly by adhering to the law and furthermore claims that they are doing nothing wrong as data form the city’s system shows they are within acceptable limits. Even after knowing the city’s way of doing the test might be flawed, he doesn’t believe it’s their responsibility if they are not technically “breaking the law”. However just because something is acceptable by the law it does not always make it morally right. Another ethical issue that was also identified is the issue of fair regulation by communities towards local manufacturing companies. There is reason to question whether the city of Gilbane has in a way acted unfairly toward Z CORP. Before several high-tech firms, including Z CORP moved to Gilbane, the city of Gilbane marketed itself as a city with a good business climate and offered tax abatements to industries. It was only after this companies moved there that more strict regulations were put in place.
There are two main technical issues identified in this case study, (1) The law governing effluent discharge is flawed, the law accounts for the discharge in terms of concentration and has no limits based on the total quantity of the contaminant. ‘The loophole is that as long as the concentration is not increased, they can discharge as much water as they like’(SCRIPT FOR GILBANE GOLD, 1998) thus Z CORP and other companies could be able to cause harm without breaking the law. (2) The method the city uses for tests is flawed, a newer more sensitive test as used by Tom Richardson showed that Z CORP was discharging material slightly above the allowable limits. Thus, it would be in the city’s best interest to also start using this more accurate method of testing and Z CORP has the moral obligation to make the city aware of this. It would then be the city’s responsibility to write new legislation to prevent Z CORP and other companies from contaminating the sludge. A good alternative course of action from Z CORP management would be to take David’s suggestion and present their finding to city. There is a possibility that they may be charged however, there is a greater possibility that the city might appreciate their transparency and their willingness to contribute towards protecting the environment as well as public interest. The City may be willing to negotiate further tax relief for the company to allow them to meet the regulations without getting themselves into financial problems. This would be a win-win situation for all parties affected.
David has conflicting obligations that are impacting his decision making. As an employee of Z CORP, he has an obligation to defend the company’s integrity, he also must make sure that in doing his job, the company makes enough profit to survive economically. David also has an obligation to the public to protect their safety. Furthermore, any decisions that may hurt the company financially will have a direct impact on the community as the company employs many local residents. In considering his alternative courses of action David must keep all of these in mind. David needs to find a way of honouring to honouring these conflicting obligations in an ethical and professional. A few alternative courses of action and their possible consequences are discussed in detail.
The first option for David should be to try and find a feasible technical solution to the problem. By implementing a way of reducing the heavy discharged metals to levels that will be acceptable when measured by the newer more sensitive test, the problem would be eliminated. This is not an easy task, but he has a responsibility to thoroughly explore this alternative as it would yield positive results for all parties involved. However if David fails to find a feasible technical solution and his superiors still refuse to do something about his concerns he could explore option (2) .The second option would be for David to clearly state to his superiors that his professional integrity is on the line and in accordance with the ECSA code of conduct he has a responsibility to do his duties with “honesty, fidelity and integrity” (Code of conduct for registered persons: Engineering profession Act,2000, 2017) ,thus he cannot continue to sign the discharge reports .He must further declare that if he continues discharging the reports he is going to disclose to the city’s officials that the results are in accordance with the city’s regulations as by old standards but do not conform with a newer more sensitive test. Unfortunately, with this option David will risk losing his job as this level of critical loyalty may be mistaken for insubordination.
Another option would be for David to approach officials in his professional society. This course of action was mentioned in the case study but was discouraged on the basis that the procedure would take time and by the time a solution is reached the damage done would be too much. However, it will take time before Z CORP increases their production rate and according to Dr. Winslow Massin, at the current production rate it cannot be concluded that they are causing harm thus David can afford to explore this option. The last resort would be the option that David chose, granting the Tv reporter an opportunity to interview him. This decision has the worst consequences as it jeopardises his career and damages the image of Z CORP to the public as well to the city officials.
References
- (2019). Retrieved from http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/professional-ethics.html
- Government Gazette. Code of conduct for registered persons: Engineering profession Act,2000 (2017).
- SCRIPT FOR GILBANE GOLD. (1998). [Ebook]. Retrieved from https://www.depts.ttu.edu/murdoughcenter/products/docs/Gilbane-Gold-Script.pdf
- Tavani, H. (2016). Ethics and Technology: Controversies, Questions, and Strategies for Ethical(3rd ed., pp. 117-118). John Wiley & Sons.
