Business owners often face ethical issues in business.

The pressures of the economic world often do

not allow much time for reflection and the high stakes may tempt an individual to compromise certain
ideals. The French general, Napoleon once stated “there are two levers to set a man in motion, fear
and self interest”. The fear of bankruptcy or losing a job, and prospects of a large profit can all lead to
unethical behaviour. Decision making is critical to the ethical resolution of conflicts. There can be
conflict between two or more personally held values; conflicts between personal values and the
values held by another person or organization, conflicts between basic principles and the need to
achieve a desired outcome and conflict between two or more individuals or groups to whom one has
an obligation (Kirrane,1990). Ultimately the decision maker must ensure that the interests of all
involved parties and the impact of any decision on these parties are considered. The question of the
professionals engineer’s primary area of responsibility is a tricky one. Ultimately, the engineer must
weigh up the effects of all the paths of action and decide which path has the most desirable effects for
all involved. This, however, is not an easy process; should he put the client first? Do his employees
come first? Should professional courtesy to the contractor take precedence or should socio-economic
factors be the primary influence in his decision?

It is valid that professionals cover for one another and protect each other’s reputations.
This is especially true if the greatest good for the most people will come about from the act. In this
case the act of exposing the contractor may result in the draughtsperson losing their job and the
ability to provide for their family. It could also ultimately result in the closure of the entire firm and
more jobs being lost and therefore the employer has a responsibility to these people. It may also have
similar effects in the contractors business. In such a case one may argue that it is in the best interests
of all involved to go ahead with the project.

However, Dr. Carter McNamara argues that small acts of unethical behaviour will lead to a corrupt
working environment (McNamara, 2010, pg243). He argues that these small acts of unethical
behaviour are unlikely to end there and what may result is full blown corruption which can come back
and erase all the good originally achieved. Often allegiances formed between professionals are done
so for the attainment of wealth. This can eventually reach a point where one engineer feels obliged to
cover up another’s mistakes because of the personal bond that has been developed between them as
they have worked together. This can lead to decisions being made for the wrong reasons and
possibly result in damage and injury.

An important objective of practising engineers is to uphold and advance the integrity, honour and
dignity of the engineering profession by using their skills for the enhancement of human welfare.
Moreover the good practising standards of CESA (Consulting Engineers of South Africa) state that the
engineer’s responsibilities are to act in the interest of the client. The standards do not however say
that you must warn a person who is not yet your client and this allows for interpretation of the rules.
David Gebler observed that when people are conflicted between the desire to do the right thing and to
succeed, they will rationalise (Gebler 2010, p52). To put this into the context of this situation, the
engineer may rationalise that he can fully employ his skill to make up for the shortcomings of the
contractor.

The contractor has worked with the client on small jobs in the past and he client has been satisfied
with the level of work the contractor provides. However, this does not mean that the contractor will be
able to deal with this new project. If you are certain that the contractor is not capable of performing the
job to the required specification and needs of the client, the client should be informed about the
contractor’s ineffective quality of work. This is especially important when the project is in an area
where injury or loss of life can result from poor standards of work. This action may lead to you losing
the prospect of a contract but in the long run could save your company’s reputation from taking a hit.
Professor Mervyn King observed in the draft King III report that, “corruption erodes public trust and
confidence in a company”. In a society that is becoming increasingly aware of and repulsed by
unethical practices, conforming to high ethical standards are likely to generate a good public image
and with that will come business.

In conclusion, it is the professional, ethical and moral obligation of the engineer to ensure that no
harm is done. As such, if he perceives that there is even the smallest chance of the contractor’s poor
work standards resulting in injury or loss of life, either directly or indirectly, he should immediately
inform the client as well as the necessary authorities to ensure that this is avoided. If however, the job
is of the nature that this is not the case and the client is happy with the contractor, then the engineer
should take the job and protect the interests of his staff and business.
REFERENCES

Kirrane, D. E. 1990, "Managing Values: A Systematic Approach to Business Ethics." Training and
Development Journal 44(11):53-60

Dr Carter McNamara, 2010. “The Complete Guide to Ethics Management: Good people can make
bad Decisions.”

David Gebler, 2010. Training magazine – June 2010

Rules of Conduct for Registered Persons: Engineering Profession Act, 2000 (Act No. 46 of 2000)