This is the August 2026 edition of our monthly series of Ethics case studies titled What Do You Think? This series is comprised of case studies from NSPE archives, involving both real and hypothetical matters submitted by engineers, public officials and members of the public.
Your peers and the NSPE Board of Ethical Review have reviewed the facts of the case as shown below. And, here are the results.
Your opinion has been registered for the August 2026 edition of our monthly series of Ethics case studies titled What Do You Think?
Your vote is recorded as:
Want to know how your peers voted? We’ll send you an email with the poll results on August 25.
Your opinion has been registered for the August 2026 edition of our monthly series of Ethics case studies titled What Do You Think?
Your vote is recorded as:
Want to know how your peers voted? We’ll send you an email with the poll results on August 25.
A Review of the Facts
Engineer Stan is employed by Industrial Company X which engages in substantial work on defense projects. Engineer Stan’s assigned duties relate to the work of subcontractors, including review of the adequacy and acceptability of the plans for material provided by subcontractors. In the course of this work Engineer Stan advises his boss, Engineer Bill, by memoranda of problems he found with certain submissions of Subcontractor Y, and urged management to reject such work and require Subcontractor Y to correct the deficiencies he outlined. Engineer Bill and Management reject the comments of Engineer Stan, particularly his proposal that the work of a particular subcontractor be redesigned because of Engineer Stan’s claim that the subcontractor’s submission represented excessive cost and time delays.
After the exchange of further memoranda between Engineer Stan and Engineer Bill, and continued disagreement between Engineer Stan and management on the issues he raised, management places a critical memorandum in his personnel file, and subsequently places him on three months’ probation, with the further notation that if his job performance did not improve, he would be terminated.
Engineer Stan continues to insist that his employer had an obligation to ensure that Subcontractor Y deliver equipment according to the specifications, as he interprets same, and thereby save substantial defense expenditures. He requests an ethical review and determination of the propriety of his course of action and the degree of ethical responsibility of engineers in such circumstances.
Was it ethical for Engineer Stan to continue his efforts to secure change in the policy of his employer and to request an ethical review?
Here is the result of our survey of your peers:
Applicable NSPE Code References:
Code II.1: Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
Code II.1.a: If engineers’ judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property, they shall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate.
Code III.2.b: Engineers shall not complete, sign, or seal plans and/or specifications that are not in conformity with applicable engineering standards. If the client or employer insists on such unprofessional conduct, they shall notify the proper authorities and withdraw from further service on the project.
Discussion
In Case 65-12 we dealt with a situation in which a group of engineers believed that a product was unsafe, and we determined that so long as the engineers held to that view they were ethically justified in refusing to participate in the processing or production of the product in question. We recognized in that case that such action by the engineers would likely lead to loss of employment.
In Case 61-10 we distinguished a situation in which engineers had objected to the redesign of a commercial product, but which did not entail any question of public health or safety. On that basis we concluded that this was a business decision for management and did not entitle the engineers to question the decision on ethical grounds.
The Code Section in Case 65-12 related to plans and specifications “that are not of a design safe to the public health and welfare,” and ties that standard to the ethical duty of engineers to notify proper authority of the dangers and withdraw from further service on the project.
That is not quite the case before us; here the issue does not allege a danger to public health or safety, but is premised upon a claim of unsatisfactory plans and the unjustified expenditure of public funds. We could dismiss the case on the narrow ground that the Code does not apply to a claim not involving public health or safety, but we think that is too narrow a reading of the ethical duties of engineers engaged in activities having a substantial impact on defense expenditures or other substantial public expenditures that relate to “welfare” as set forth in Code II.1.
The situation presented here has become well known in recent years as “whistleblowing”, and we note that there have been several cases evoking national interest in the defense field. As we recognized in earlier cases, if an engineer feels strongly that an employer’s course of conduct is improper when related to public concerns, and if the engineer feels compelled to blow the whistle to expose the facts as he sees them, he may well have to pay the price of loss of employment. In some of the more notorious cases of recent years engineers have gone through such experiences and even if they have ultimately prevailed on legal or political grounds, the experience is not one to be undertaken lightly.
In this type of situation, we feel that the ethical duty or right of the engineer becomes a matter of personal conscience, but we are not willing to make a blanket statement that there is an ethical duty in these kinds of situations for the engineer to continue his campaign within the company, and make the issue one for public discussion. The Code only requires that the engineer withdraw from a project and report to proper authorities when the circumstances involve endangerment of the public health, safety, and welfare.
The Ethical Review Board’s Conclusion
It was ethical for Engineer Stan to continue his efforts to secure change in the policy of his employer and to request an ethical review. On the other hand, Engineer Stan does not have an ethical obligation to continue his effort to secure a change in the policy of his employer under these circumstances, or to report his concerns to proper authority, but has an ethical right to do so as a matter of personal conscience.
BOARD OF ETHICAL REVIEW
Ernest C. James, P.E., Lawrence E. Jones, P.E., Robert H. Perrine, P.E., James L. Polk, P.E., J. Kent Roberts, P.E., Alfred H. Samborn, P.E., F. Wendell Beard, P.E., chairman
Note – In regard to the question of application of the Code to corporations vis-a-vis real persons, business form or type should not negate nor influence conformance of individuals to the Code. The Code deals with professional services, which services must be performed by real persons. Real persons in turn establish and implement policies within business structures. The Code is clearly written to apply to the Engineer and it is incumbent on a member of NSPE to endeavor to live up to its provisions. This applies to all pertinent sections of the Code. This opinion is based on data submitted to the Board of Ethical Review and does not necessarily represent all of the pertinent facts when applied to a specific case. This opinion is for educational purposes only and should not be construed as expressing any opinion on the ethics of specific individuals. This opinion may be reprinted without further permission, provided that this statement is included before or after the text of the case.
1431 Graham Drive, Suite 265
support@noonpi.com
I don’t see this as an ethics issue. Stan was doing the job he was hired to do. Management/Bill apparently have the right to accept/reject Stan’s reviews. Seems like Stan didn’t appreciate this. The deficiencies Stan found center on excess cost and time, not safety. Perhaps things got out of hand with emails and possibly insubordination??? In any event Company X has HR policies that dictate what the employee/supervisor do in this case.
The information given in the case description does not show that the deficiencies lead to endangerment or compromise of public safety (this is my understanding). So it is up to his boss and management how to proceed with the project. We deal with inefficiencies in this case and the engineer does not have ethical obligations to insist – this appears as opinion against opinion. And he is not the decision maker in this case.
As others have pointed out, there is no safety issue here. Management has the right to disagree with an employee’s assessment. There is also no issue of misuse of public funds. It is the sub-contractor Y that is potentially being inefficient, in which case company X loses money. The defense department’s contract is with company X and presumably that is not impacted by company X’s decision.
And the inefficiencies and excess costs appear to be “notional” in this case, and just Engineer Stan’s opinion (and not really an engineering opinion).
Engineer Bill does not appear to share this opinion, and he’s the boss.
Having worked with defense contracts and specifications and review of submittals, Engineer Stan is correct in his stance and the contracting officer for the defense department would agree with those decisions. Those submittals would typically be marked rejected and revise, especially if they did not conform to the specifications. I do find it odd that Engineer Bill and management would push back and agree to the potential cost overruns and schedule slip. This is not in the best interest of the public (you and I) who pays for these projects. Does management of Company X have any interests in Company Y???? That would be unethical!