Ethics concepts and applications

Engineering Ethics -- Case Study: Parkville

Some of the most challenging situations arising in connection with professional ethics and comparative obligations are those that present potential conflicts of interest. In this case, Liz has both a duty of professional responsibility and due diligence with respect to her work for her employer; at the same time, she has responsibilities to disclose any conflicts of interest on her part to any action committee of which she is a part.

Assuming that CDC's intentions and statements that it planned to present to the city council were not fraudulent, deceptive, or illegal, a good argument could be made that Liz inappropriately deceived CDC by failing to disclose her association with the Committee for Environmental Equality. If CDC has the legal right to make a presentation to the city council, CDC is entitled to know if any of its team members are unable to fully satisfy their work obligation to the company. Liz is not necessarily obligated to make the presentation or to participate in lobbying efforts; on the other hand, CDC is entitled to know that they cannot rely on Liz in that regard. By failing to disclose her conflict of interest to CDC, Liz could potentially deprive them of the fair opportunity to make their best presentation to the city council through another team member. Liz may not ethically allow CDC to rely on her efforts if she cannot execute them because of any conflict.

In principle, Liz also had an obligation to disclose her employment situation to the Committee; that is especially true if she is a supporter of the CDC plan. However, if Liz is genuinely opposed to the CDC project and if she fully intends to participate in the opposition effort of the Committee, then it is not clear why she must disclose her employment situation. As a practical matter, there is no reason for her not to disclose her employment and the Committee would likely value her insight into CDC. In that case, Liz would have an ethical duty not to disclose any confidential or proprietary knowledge about CDC to the Committee.

Provided that Liz is genuinely opposed to the CDC project and capable of participating fully in the Committee's opposition efforts, Liz has more of a right not to disclose the situation to the Committee than to CDC. If Liz is supportive of the CDC plan, she has a greater duty to disclose her situation to the Committee. If Liz cannot make a full-faith effort on behalf of the Committee because of her concerns about her employment, she must disclose her concerns to the Committee. Likewise, if Liz cannot fulfill her work responsibilities because of her personal beliefs and association with the Committee, Liz has an obligation to notify CDC so that they can appoint someone without any such conflicts to perform the role for which Liz would have been responsible. Liz may not remain silent and simply shirk (or fake) her performance in the CDC effort.

Liz has every right to oppose the CDC project in her personal time although from a practical matter, it may cost her the job. The safest alternative course of action for Liz might have been to simply respond truthfully that she is well acquainted with the city council because she had previously been very active in opposing commercial projects in her home area. She could have assured her employers that she would not divulge CDC information to the Committee or violate any of her vocational responsibilities, but that it would probably be more in CDC's interests to have someone who is not personally opposed to the project conduct any lobbying of the city council and allow her to focus on projects that do not pose any conflicts of interest.