+1 (845) 317-8489 [email protected]

Your client has engaged a local civil engineering firm to investigate the potential for

a waste incineration plant to be built in an abandoned quarry to help meet their waste

management targets and commitments made to carbon reduction through exploring

alternative modes of electricity generation. The client is aware that previous planning

applications for waste incineration from other local councils have been rejected so

are keen for a positive outcome from the engineering consultant’s report to support

their application.

Your client, who is the brother of your supervising Engineer, has promised further

contracts based on a favourable survey report which must misinform the levels of

carbon emissions associated with the plant. To avoid any suggestions of nepotism

the supervising Engineer insists that your signature, despite you being a graduate

engineer, appears on the survey report to sign off on the contents.

(a) Discuss the ethical issues that are evident in the above scenario referring to the ICE

code of conduct rules as appropriate. 2022 latest answers


(b) During initial site meetings it becomes clear that the proposed equipment and

industrial suppliers are not the most environmentally friendly options on the market

but have been suggested to cut costs. Furthermore, the safety record of the proposed

suppliers has been called into question with some previous Health and Safety

violations. Both issues have been ignored and overlooked by the supervising

Engineer who seems keen to get the job completed given the promise of future


What course of action should you take and what, if any, ICE code of conduct rules

have been breached?


(c) The emissions levels in the report and the H&S track record of the suppliers were

challenged as part of the planning application and the supervising Engineer pointed

the finger of blame at you, quoting rule 5 of the ICE code of practice. 

Formulate your

defence stating clearly whether you feel this blame is justified.