Knowledge Of Damaging Information On State Pollution Control

Knowledge Of Damaging Information the State Pollution Control Author

The primary assignment involves analyzing the ethical obligations of Persaud, an engineer, upon learning that a company, Bright Corporation, may be discharging waste into water bodies in violation of environmental standards. Persaud has been employed to produce a detailed report supporting the company's compliance claims, but after completing his study, he concludes that the discharge violates environmental standards and that corrective action would be costly. The company terminates his contract before he submits any written report and instructs him not to draft a report. Later, Persaud learns of a public hearing where the company will present data asserting compliance. The core questions are: What should Persaud do now? Is he obligated to report the violation to authorities? Does his residual obligation to the company prevent him from reporting? The essay should critically examine the ethical responsibilities grounded in engineering codes of ethics, environmental considerations, and professional obligations, drawing on relevant ethical frameworks and standards.

Paper For Above instruction

Engineering professionals often face complex ethical dilemmas where their duty to protect public safety and environmental welfare conflicts with client confidentiality and contractual obligations. In the scenario involving Persaud, the engineer’s obligation to environmental safety and public welfare must be critically evaluated against his contractual duties to the Bright Corporation. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Code of Ethics emphasizes the engineer’s duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. Specifically, Standard 1 states that engineers shall act as faithful agents or trustees for the public, holding paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public (ASCE, 2017). These principles suggest that Persaud has an ethical obligation to report the potential violation to the relevant environmental authorities, especially considering his scientific conclusion about non-compliance with environmental standards.

Furthermore, the ethical concept of whistleblowing becomes relevant in this context. Whistleblowing refers to the act of reporting unethical or illegal activities that may harm the public interest. According to Hartman and Laslett (2015), engineers have a moral duty to disclose environmental violations when failing to do so endangers public health or safety. The decision to report depends on balancing the confidentiality owed to the employer with the broader social responsibility to safeguard the environment and public health. Given that Persaud learned of a potential violation and the consequences of failing to notify authorities could be severe environmental harm, his duty to protect the public outweighs his obligation to maintain confidentiality in this scenario.

On the other hand, Persaud’s residual obligations to Bright Corporation complicate the decision. The company has explicitly instructed him not to submit a written report and has terminated his contract. His withholding of information may breach the confidentiality agreement or contractual duties. However, professional engineering ethics generally advocate that the duty to public welfare supersedes contractual confidentiality, especially where large-scale environmental harm is involved. Persaud’s initial employment agreement may include confidentiality clauses, but these are subordinate to ethical standards that prioritize public safety and environmental health (NAE, 2004).

Legal obligations also reinforce the ethical stance. Under environmental laws and regulations, engineering professionals may be mandated reporters of violations that threaten public health. Failure to report such violations could result in legal penalties for both the engineer and the company. Consequently, conscientiously reporting the violation aligns with legal and moral duties. Moreover, the concept of moral courage applies here—Persaud must decide whether risking professional repercussions to prevent environmental harm is a justified action based on his ethical commitments.

In conclusion, Persaud should report the environmental violation to the relevant authority. His professional obligation under the ASCE Code and ethical principles prioritizes public safety and environmental protection over contractual confidentiality. His residual obligation to the company does not outweigh these broader responsibilities. Ethical engineering practice necessitates transparency and advocacy for the environment, especially when scientific evidence indicates violations of environmental standards. By reporting the violation, Persaud upholds the integrity of the engineering profession and fulfills his moral duty to society.

References

• American Society of Civil Engineers. (2017). Code of Ethics. ASCE. https://www.asce.org/ethics/
• Hartman, L., & Laslett, L. (2015). Ethical decision making in engineering practice. Ethics in Engineering, 10(2), 34-48.
• National Academy of Engineering. (2004). The Engineering Code of Ethics. NAE Publications.
• Robertson, D. P. (2012). Ethics and the environment. Environmental Ethics, 34(3), 197–213.
• Hemming, R. (2020). Whistleblowing in engineering: Responsibilities and risks. Journal of Professional Ethics, 24(1), 15-29.
• Freeman, R. E., & Reed, D. L. (1983). Stockholder theory and stakeholder theory. California Management Review, 25(3), 53–74.
• Jones, T. M. (1999). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 366-378.
• Schinzinger, R., & Martin, L. J. (2007). Ethics in Engineering. McGraw-Hill.
• Kidder, R. M. (2005). Moral Courage: Taking Action When Your Values Are at Stake. HarperOne.
• Denning, S. (2018). Engineering ethics and environmental responsibility. Professional Engineer, 22(4), 12-17.