Chemical Engineering October 2016 - 17

Case / question
1980 data
Case 1 (Just a pinch of poison)
Case 2 (To err is human)
Case 3 (The missing gasket)
Case 4 (Insider information)
General questions
Q1 (In the last 6-10 years, do you
think people have generally become
more or less ethical?)
Q2 (Have you ever done something
unethical at work that could, or did,
have a harmful effect?)
Q3 (Do you know of anyone at your
company that has done something
you consider unethical?)
Q4 (Have you ever felt punished for
making an ethical, but unpopular,
decision in your workplace?)
Q5 (Do pressures at work ever cause
you to seriously think of doing something
ethically wrong?)
TABLE 1. SURVEY RESULTS SUMMARY
2007 data
61% said response 1 (report findings,
but recommend additive not
be used); 20% said " other "
54.2% said response 1 (inform government
authorities, even though no
harm resulted)
not available
51.2% said response 2 (don't say
anything, so consequences of
inspection lead to changes in plant
safety practices)
41% less ethical
37% same
16.6% more ethical
not available
not available
not available
not available
Ethics-related scenarios
The 2015 CE ethics survey also
presented readers with several ethically
charged situations and inquired
about how they would react in such
instances (see Table 1). The first four
of the scenarios were repeated from
the earlier CE surveys, and results
are compared to those from previous
years. The second set of four situations
were new to last year's survey.
Case 1. A Pinch of Poison (A serendipitous
discovery indicates that a
minute amount of tin and lead salts,
recognized poisons, can stabilize
a product and increase profits). A
wide majority of respondents (91%
in 2015) said that they would report
the findings on the potential profits,
but recommend that the additive not
be used at all, despite the fact that
the levels are as low as what might
be expected to leach out of soldered
seams of cans.
Case 2. To Err is Human (Cyanidecontaining
water is dumped illegally
into the sewer system, but no apparent
harm results). The most common
course of action chosen in the 2015
was to follow the law and report the
incident to authorities (77%) and risk
fines and discipline, even though no
harm resulted. The total choosing
this option was higher than what was
reported in previous surveys.
77% responded with answer 1
65.2% said answer 1
69.4% said response #2 (order new gasket and
postpone tests); 18.4% said " other "
47.4% said response 2
15% said response 4 (anonymously inform OSHA
about the knowledge revealed regarding the surprise
inspection)
42.8% less ethical
36% same
21% more ethical
87.5% said no
12.5% said yes
63.7% said no
36.3% said yes
70.3% said no
29.7 said yes
64.9% said no
35.1% said yes
Case 3. Missing Gasket (An operator
must decide whether or not to
go against policy to reuse a critical
gasket in order to meet a test deadline).
In this case, 83% of respondents
said they would elect to postpone
the pilot test until a new gasket
can be obtained, although doing
so would jeopardize the company's
chances of winning a bid.
Case 4. Insider Information (An
engineer learns of an impending surprise
OSHA inspection in a confidential
conversation). The most common
response (54.5%) for this case was to
keep the information private, and potentially
subject the company to several
changes in safety practice, rather
than warn the plant's safety manager
of the surprise safety inspection.
Case 5. Vendor Incentives (from
Michael Pritchard at the Center for
the Study of Ethics in Society at the
Western Michigan University. The
case involves an engineer in a situation
in which they could help the relative
of a vendor he knows and get a
cheap place to stay for his vacation,
but would violate company policy
about accepting incentives). The
responses were the following: 63%
said they would discuss the situation
with company management and let
them decide; 31.2% said they would
cancel their vacation plans to avoid
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHEMENGONLINE.COM
OCTOBER 2016
2015 data
91% responded with answer 1
77% said answer 1
83% said response 2
54.5% said response 2;
18% said response 4
46% less ethical
38.4% same
15% more ethical
91% said no
8% said yes
60.6% said no
39.4% said yes
65.6% said no
34.4% said yes
72.3% said no
27.7% said yes
accepting the incentive; 5.8% said
they would go through with the vacation
plans anyway.
Case 6. Internal Dissent (from Michael
Pritchard;
The scenario
involves
an engineer who is faced with
the choice of following the orders of
a superior, even though it would require
falsifying a report). A high number
of respondents (89%) said they
would refuse to write the report on
the grounds that it would be falsification,
going against the boss's orders.
Eleven percent said they would write
the report as their superior asked.
Case 7. Getting Acquainted (from
Michael Pritchard; This case involves
a valve for a caustic tank that was
mistakenly left open, resulting in the
loss of caustic. Would you assign
blame to a childhood friend who
works under you, or acknowledge
responsibility yourself?). In this question,
87.5% of respondents said they
would acknowledge responsibility to
their supervisor for leaving the valve
open, while only 12.4% said they
would identify their friend as the one
who left the valve open.
Case 8. Chemical Waste Handling
(from Michael Pritchard; The case involves
a choice about moving leaking
drums to prevent environmental
problems despite a law prohibiting
transport of chemical waste). Most
17
http://WWW.CHEMENGONLINE.COM
Chemical Engineering October 2016

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Chemical Engineering October 2016
