A.

Isolate the ethical issues in the problem above

1. Falsifying the qualifications of MEng and its experience and ownership of

appropriate equipment.

2. Inflating the project cost without justification.

3. The personal assistant to the Mayor asking for bribe during the bid evaluation and
selection exercise so that the process would be skewed in favour of MEng.

4. The application of inappropriate mining method popularly known as “galamsey”

and as a result depleting over 100 acres of forest cover and polluting the only source
of drinking water in the region.

B. State the steps you must follow to analyze the ethical issues above.

Analysis of ethical issues are aimed at addressing problems resulting from one’s
professional conduct bothering on ethics so as arrive at decisions that provide lasting
solutions to the issues identified.

In analysing ethical issues above, the first step was to identify the ethical issues at
hand. Secondly, the relevant stakeholders such as the affected community, the Meng
Company, the Engineer and the Mayor (customer) were identified.

Thirdly, the facts relating to identified ethical issues were interpreted, after which it was
made clear issues that bother on legality and those that do not.

The next step was to evaluate the information, after which realistic objectives were
set. This is followed by identification of options that can used to meet the set objection.
Finally, the option identified are evaluated and justified.

C. Analyze the ethical dilemma taking cognizant of the underlying principles of

ethical conduct by engineering professionals.

An ethical dilemma describes a conflict between two morally correct courses of action
(Delany et al., 2016). There is a conflict between values or principles. The dilemma is
a situation in which one is ‘tempted’ do something right and wrong at the same time,
and which by taking one right course you will negate the other right course (Hess &
Fore, 2018). Ideally, one should strive to conduct himself in legal and ethical manner.
However, this is often difficult in real business life. The task of the ethical professional
is to balance these value responsibilities. By principle, every engineer has ethical
responsibility first and foremost to the public, secondly to the employer of the
customer, and finally to other parties or professionals (Delany et al., 2016; Bielefeldt
& Canney, 2016).

From the case under study, the engineer is under obligation to protect the interest,
safety, health and welfare of the region, and is aware very well, how their inappropriate
mining practices are affecting the health of the people and he may want to blow a
whistle to create awareness. However, he faces ethical dilemma as ethics of
confidentiality and non-disclosure clauses contained in employment contract prevents
him from acting ethically in the interest of the public. Engineers are to act professionally
with respect to the employer or client as faithful agents or trustees (Bielefeldt &
Canney, 2016). This implies that the engineer places high importance on the values
of loyalty, confidentiality, efficiency, and diligence. The principle of ethics in respect to
the engineering profession dictates that the interest of the public in respect to health,
safety and welfare is paramount.

Falsification of the firm qualification, its experience and ownership of equipment used
is an issue of ethical dilemma to the engineer. This is because is wrong, unethical and
illegal for the engineer to falsify documents in respect to experiences, qualification and
ownership of equipment. However, the engineer is under duty of loyalty to adhere to
the bid of his employer. Biding to his employer’s demand would be illegal, at the same
time, doing the right thing by not falsifying documents would be against his
professional ethics of loyalty to his employer. If found out, it may result in a lawsuit and
public mistrust.

Not only did subjecting the forest reserve to inappropriate mining deplete over 100
acres of forest cover but is polluting the only source of drinking water in the region with
heavy metal deposits and silt. The engineer is in a dilemma as he is torn between the
ethical demand of loyalty to the employer and the protection of public interest and the
environment. The principle of engineering ethic indicates that in this conflicting
situation, the interest of the public should be supreme.
It is the responsibility of project managers to manage stakeholders’ expectations to
accomplish the goals of the project. The stakeholder in this case, the superior of the
project manager in charge of procurement and the entire bidding process, agreed to
pay the bribe in order to influence the decision of an awarding party. Being aware that
in this case bribery is the only way the contract can be won and knowing bribery is
unethical put the project manager in an ethical dilemma.

Another ethical dilemma that emanated from the case study is because of the project
manager being asked to inflate the project cost without justification. Inflating project
cost is unethical and avoiding the act is be against needs of the MEng Company.

In summary, the principle of engineering ethics requires that in all matters of ethical
dilemma, the interest of the public in respect to welfare, health and safety comes
before that of employers and other professional parties.

REFERENCES
Delany, C., Kosta, L., Ewen, S., Nicholson, P., Remedios, L., & Harms, L. (2016).
Identifying pedagogy and teaching strategies for achieving nationally
prescribed learning outcomes. Higher Education Research & Development,
35(5), 895-909. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1138450
Hess, J. L., & Fore, G. (2018). A systematic literature review of US engineering ethics
interventions. Science and engineering ethics, 24(2), 551-583.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9910-6
Bielefeldt, A. R., & Canney, N. E. (2016). Changes in the social responsibility attitudes
of engineering students over time. Science and engineering ethics, 22(5),
1535-1551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9706-5