KARUNIA AKBAR

T1901294

REPORT ASSIGNMENT
Case Study – Gilbane Gold

I. INTRODUCTION
Engineering in ethics become the set of arrays and as guidelines for engineers adhere to as a
moral obligation to their profession and to the world. On the one hand, engineering is a
professional career that affect lives. On the other hand, when ethics is not involved, disaster often
occurs; these disasters not only include huge monetary costs and environmental impacts, but also
often result in the loss of human life. Martin and Schinzinger (1989) defined engineering ethics as
the study of related questions about moral conduct, character, ideals and relationships of peoples
and organizations involved in technological development. Shortly, an engineer has to be well
qualified, well informed & committed to his obligations to the society.
The fictional case below will show some ethical issue concerning whistle blowing, the
obligations of engineers towards environmental issues, management problems having to do with
honesty and trust between business and its host community, the issue of the fairness of a
community towards local manufacturing plants, the problems raised for individuals and groups by
the necessity for action in the face of inconclusive scientific evidence, and the relationship of law
and morality.
II. THE CASE
From the fictitious city of Gilbane, produced sludge from the Gilbane sewage plant that has
been used for many years as a fertilizer called “Gilbane Gold”. The annual revenue generated saves
the average family about $300 a year in taxes. In order to maintain the income, the town enacted
restrictions on the discharge of heavy metals into the sewage that ten times stricter than federal
regulations. As one of many companies in Gilbane, Z CORP, a computer components
manufacturer, discharges wastewater containing toxic materials, primarily heavy metals into the
city sewer system. However, the city law only regulates effluent discharge in terms of the amount
of toxic material for a given volume of discharge, not in terms of the total quantity of contaminant.
So, Z CORP can always operate within Gilbane standards by simply increasing the volume of
discharge. Moreover, Z CORP signed a contract that will result in a five-fold increase in the
discharge of heavy metals.
The problem occurs when David Jackson, a young new Z-CORP engineer, found that when
measured by a newer and more sensitive test for heavy metals, Z-CORP waste discharge will
surpassed the city allowable limit. Hence, the new contract will make the contamination much
worse. This new testing method using advanced equipment introduced by Tom Richard, a Z-CORP
environmental consultant. Ironically, Tom fired by Z CORP due to his warnings about the
discharge of toxic materials.
David revealed this problem at an engineering staff meeting attended by Diane Collins, Z
CORP Vice President, Frank Seeders, engineering manager and Phil Port, head of environment
affairs and David’s immediate supervisor. Nevertheless, Diane could not accept his suggestion due
to Z CORP production and expense in high environmental improvement costs. Then, she sent Phil
Port to discuss this matter with David. However, David insists that the metals will concentrate in
the sludge no matter how much water is added and ultimately will end up on farmers’ fields.
Subsequently, Z CORP should choose whether to advise the city of the newer test or lose
money on the new contract. In the end, the vice president confirmed that Z CORP has
 responsibility to provide jobs for the citizen, while the Gilbane city should consider about the
environment. Yet, David finally sized up to become whistle blower by talking to the local TV
reporter, Maria Renato.
III. DISCUSSION
In this report, I try to elaborate the case with some points of analysis, namely:
1) The most responsible person to manage the problem in that case;
2) David Jackson’s proper action concerning the problem;
3) The action of Dr. Winslow Massin regarding this issue;
Firstly, some characters in this case actually have their own responsibility and they carry out
their respective functions. In my view, the most responsible person to manage the problem in the
case is David Jackson. This man become a key person to the core of the issue as responsible for
signing plant effluent reports and keeping the plant in compliance with regulations. From his
signature, the data will supply to the city. Based on the case, David not only role as employee for
Z CORP, but also become a man who maintain his professional integrity as an engineer, and his
special role as environmental engineer. Hence, he should be honest with the city in reporting data
on the discharge of the heavy metals. Furthermore, David can manage the problem by conduct
technical and non-technical solutions. Technical solutions include reduce the amounts of heavy
metal wastes from the production process itself, and to prevent the heavy metals from being
discharged into the sewer. Besides that, David able to persuade Diane to convince corporate
management about increased in production could affected to environment.
Secondly, my standpoint highlight the aspect of David Jackson’s action towards the issue
into several aspects. According to Pritchard (2001), an engineer should has some characters
including: integrity, honesty, civic-mindedness, courage (to speak up, to “stick to one’s guns”),
willingness to make self-sacrifice (including willingness to assume some personal risk), and not
being too personally ambitious. From the case, in the beginning David Jackson found some
dilemmas towards the situation such as obligation as employee to his company, his professional
integrity as an engineer, and the long-term health effects of heavy metals. However, his proper
action concerning the problem will elaborate below, these include:
 Integrity and Honesty, as an engineer, David is expected to adhere to standards of honesty and
integrity. In my view, in this aspect David did not do a proper action because he failed to
inform the information about the new tests. Also he lied about the monthly report data on the
discharge of the heavy metals which supply to the city;
 Civic-mindedness, however, David did proper action by consider what is going on in his
community about long-term health effects of toxic;
 Courage and self-sacrifice, after some risks consideration and the support from outside, at the
end, David speak up by talking to the TV about the problem. His action directly affect his
career in Z CORP just like happened with Tom Richards.
Regarding to Dr. Winslow Massin, he underlined about the present production level of Z
CORP is safe, and he holds with the City’s regulations that much stricter than the Federal
Government’s. However, he noted that if Z CORP increased the production, it might become a
problem. In my opinion, due to his capacity as academics, Winslow suggested a soft solution than
Tom did. Even Winslow agree with the dangerous effects of the toxic, he still prefer to consider
David Jackson’s career in Z CORP if the case goes to public and try to looking another way such
as talk to Diane supervisor or boss, and send the case to the engineering society. Winslow

2
 believed that let the experts sort out the details will help against this case. However, I think this
will consume more time and the environment has already damaged.
IV. CONCLUSION
In its essence, from the case we can learn that decisions made by engineers usually have
serious consequences to people. Ethics and ethical reasoning guide decision-making. Every
engineer must be taught the wisdom in adopting a universal ethical point of view, and each
manager must be made aware that good ethics means better business.

REFERENCES
 Martin, M. W., & Schinzinger, R. (1989). Ethics in engineering. McGraw-Hill;
 NSPE/NIEE. 1988. SCRIPT FOR GILBANE GOLD A Case Study in Engineering Ethics;
 Pritchard, M. S. (2001). Responsible engineering: The importance of character and imagination.
Science and Engineering Ethics, 7(3), 391-402