As an engineer, you can be exposed to sensitive information that you may find disturbing or believe to be illegal. You overhear someone talking about shortcuts they’ve taken in the design process or find a report of malpractice in your company that could put lives at risk. What do you do with that information? A whistleblower is a person that leaks this information about a company’s activity that is potentially illegal or damaging to the company. But then should you face repercussions from your employer for tarnishing their name? We discuss in the article below
Whistleblowers – perhaps not as saint like as they thought
Whistleblowers have the power to destroy a company’s reputation, and this can be based on unsubstantiated claims. In these cases, no lives were actually at risk but the company is still in danger of falling into disrepute, putting it’s financial and employee security into doubt.
According to The Guardian, in the case of a Rolls Royce employee who came forward citing concerns with the companies engines and was subsequently fired, the claims he was making were unsubstantiated and at a tribunal, it became clear he was uncooperative with the company.
The effect of damaging a company’s reputation can be catastrophic for thousands of people, if a company’s reputation is so badly damaged that it is at risk of liquidation thousands of employees can be made redundant. In the case of Enron, although no lives were at risk, it is estimated 28,500 people lost their jobs due to damage to company reputation because of a whistleblower in a corporate scandal. Using utilitarianism one can argue that it is morally wrong to blow the whistle on a company, in that causing thousands of people to lose their jobs is not the best possible outcome. If people were sued for whistleblowing, issues like in Enron would be more likely to be sorted internally, at no damage to reputation or to unemployment.
By blowing the whistle, the employee is effectively destroying any relationship of trust, not just with the company but also their fellow employees. These employees are then less likely to trust each other as there could be another potential whistleblower, thus preventing them from talking openly about problems, in fear of a co-worker blowing the whistle on them. This places a lot of strain on the working environment and can destroy productivity by creating an atmosphere of mistrust. This can massively reduce the productivity of the company and prevent innovation due to this hostile environment; putting the company’s future in jeopardy. Therefore under care ethics, which emphasises the importance of relationships, it is morally wrong, as you are destroying relationships rather than maintaining and culturing them. Thus the whistleblower can be seen as acting unethically and the company should be allowed to undertake legal action.
A last resort to protect the public
Whether engineers should be sued is a crucial factor to encourage them for disclosing sensitive information. Sometimes, by revealing confidential information, the public’s assets or safety can be protected. The ‘Utilitarianism’ theory suggested that the decision that leads to the most benefits to the most shall be considered as an ethical choice. Depending on the stakeholders of a project/decision, if it’s affecting the general public, their interest is considered the top priority. It is different from the phenomenon of ‘Not in My Backyard’ (NIMBY), that describes people supporting a decision they can benefit from but opposing the way it’s implemented as it has a negative influence on them. In a circumstance that the company interest conflicts with the public, the company should give way to the public for the willing of the majority. It should be achieved by all means possible, including whistleblowing. As it becomes an ethical decision to protect the majority of the public, people who do the disclosure should not be sued but be encouraged even it is a breach of promises and result in losses to the minority stakeholders. Last year, a malpractice was exposed in a major infrastructure construction in Hong Kong, which could lead to risk of structural collapse, according to South China Morning Post. A contractor risked his job to disclose to the public, and the public pressure forces the government to carry out an investigation and to evaluate the structural safety.
Unauthorised disclosure is sometimes the final option an engineer could take when the existing reporting system fails. How an engineer acts responsibly and to make ethically correct actions is sometimes rely on the guidelines set by professional organisations and the firm the engineer employed at, known as the code of conducts. Each company have their code of conducts, and they can be different between firms due to values and cultural variation. Responses from seniors are therefore become one of the factors affecting how engineer express their worries. After the Ladbroke Grove rail crash in London in 1999, a Confidential Incident Reporting & Analysis System (CIRAS) was introduced to the railway industry. The employee is protected to express their concerns anonymously. However, the reporting system is not implemented in all engineering fields, thus it is not always an effective solution. Engineers in this situation have no choice but to blow the whistle. Meanwhile, there is guidance from the Engineering Council in the UK for institution code of conducts, and safety is often highlighted. Some institutions provide advice for reporting concerns. These guidance and protection demonstrate the implement of Kantian Theory: People: An ethical decision is based on whether ones fulfil their duty (i.e. safety to everyone), but not the consequence of action, including being sued by individuals.
As a group, we believe that the whistleblower should not face legal action as they have helped reduce the risk to the public by coming forward.