Case 61-10

Quality of Product

Code Citations: [C19] [C4] [C8]

Case Citations: NONE

Facts:

For many years the ABC Company has manufactured a product which enjoys a high quality rating in the industry and among the public. Competing manufacturers introduce a similar product of lower quality at lower cost, and this competition causes a serious decline in the sales of ABC's product. To counter this competition the ABC Company instructs Engineer A to redesign its product so that it may be made available to the market at lower cost. Upon receiving these instructions Engineer A questions whether such an action would be consistent with the Canons of Ethics, because a lower quality product under the same brand name would mislead the public. More specifically, this action would amount to forcing the public to unwittingly accept a product of lesser quality, one that does not meet the high quality standards with which the product has been associated for many years. Engineer A refuses to design the lower quality product.

Question:

Was it ethical for Engineer A to refuse to design a lower quality product?

References:

Code C4

"He will have due regard for the safety of life and health of public and employees who may be affected by the work for which he is responsible."

Code C8

"The engineer will act in professional matters for each client or employer as a faithful agent or trustee."

Code C19

"The engineer will endeavor to protect the engineering profession collectively and individually from misrepresentation and misunderstanding."

Discussion:

The primary thrust of the Canons and Rules is to protect and serve the public safety, health and welfare by the application of engineering knowledge and to protect and defend the high standing of the engineering profession's integrity and public confidence in it. If Engineer A believes that the lower quality product would jeopardize safety or health, Code C4 clearly indicates their ethical responsibility to advise management.

Neither the Canons nor the Rules, however, deal with business decisions of companies. The Canons and Rules should be restricted to situations which clearly raise questions of the ethical conduct of individual engineers.

Here, the decision to offer a lower quality product is exclusively a matter for management determination, based on the company's evaluation of its commercial operations.

Engineer A is not asked to engage in an activity which collides with his duty to advise management.

Neither the Canons nor the Rules, however, deal with business under the Canons or Rules. Engineer A may feel that the decision is not a wise one, or that it may reflect adversely upon the public acceptance of the Company's product, or even that the public may be misled. These are risks for management evaluation, but there is no reason for Engineer A to refrain from offering the company his opinions and comments through normal communication channels within the company. If the public is misled, the unfavorable reaction will be directed against the company. It would be a disservice to the engineering profession to attempt to extend the Canons and Rules to the point of interference in business decisions of the commercial world.

Conclusion:

It was unethical for Engineer A to refuse to design a lower quality product. He should not question the company's business decision, but he does have an obligation to point out safety hazards in the new design. In addition, he may offer his personal opinions and comments to management.

Board of Ethical Review

L. R. DURKEE, P. E., PHIL T. ELLIOTT, P. E., A. C. KIRKWOOD, P. E., MARVIN C. NICHOLS, P. E., EZRA K. NICHOLSON, P. E., PIERCE G. ELLIS, P. E., Chairman

Note: Member W. S. Nelson did not participate in the consideration or decision of this opinion.