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
business.
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.
