Unit Four

Responsibility
Introduction
In the preceding chapters we discussed the basic components of professional ethics, including,
the definition of basic concepts like ethics, profession, applied ethics, ethics and ethical decision
making. We turn now to an overview of some of the broad areas in which professional ethics is
commonly used in our daily lives. So, we will look at concepts such as obligation, responsibility,
and accountability that we encounter in our daily lives.
Objectives:
After completing the study of this unit, you will be able to:
-Define responsibility, obligation, and reasonable care.
-Observe the role of responsibility in ethical decision making.
-Familiarize with Blame and their causes.
-Understand Individual responsibility and accountability.
-Identify impediments to reasonable action.
.
Section 1: Obligation, Responsibility, and Reasonable Care
Time allocation 2 credit hours
In this section, we will discuss about obligation, responsibility and reasonable care. We will also
scrutinize and look at the detail of these concepts in professional ethics context.

Session objectives:
After you have completed studying this section, you will be able to:
-define obligation, responsibility, and reasonable care.
-differentiate obligation and responsibility.
-explain responsibility and obligation from the angle of professional ethics view.

Brainstorming:
? Dear learner, what is Responsibility and what relation does it have with obligation? Or
are they one and the same?
Human beings seek accountability. People want to know who is responsible for certain actions
and who is accountable for the consequences of those actions. Harry Truman referred to his
famous desk sign on more than one occasion to point out that responsibility, in the end, must be
taken by someone—some identifiable person must be held to account. Truman was willing to
accept that accountability. Increasingly today, people are more likely to ask, “Where exactly
does the buck stop, or does it ever stop?” In the wake of a multitude of recent corporate scandals,
commentary has been rife with questions of responsibility and accountability; however, much of
that discussion has been carried on without clear knowledge of the definitional differences
between the two terms and the significance of those differences. Of public relations in particular
it might be asked, “Why weren’t you standing guard?” which is a simplified way of asking,
“What is public relations responsible for, and for what is it accountable?” Unfortunately, there is
no common perception—at least among business leaders, public relations professionals, and
scholars—as to exactly what constitutes both responsibility and accountability, and therein lies
the rub.
Responsibility versus Accountability
The roles taken on by public relations practitioners imply a responsibility to perform certain
functions associated with those roles. Business historian Vincent E. Barry has defined the term
responsibility, when used in business affairs, as referring to “a sphere of duty or obligation
1
assigned to a person by the nature of that person’s position, function, or work.” Responsibility
could thus be viewed as a bundle of obligations associated with a job or function. Narrowly
defined, role refers to a job description, which, in turn, encompasses, but is not limited to,
function. For instance, a practitioner’s role may be that of media relations. Function would refer
to the specifics of the job, including press release writing and dissemination, as well as the
maintenance of good media relations. In this sense, responsibility refers to more than just the
primary function of a role; it refers to the multiple facets of that function—both processes and
outcomes (and the consequences of the acts performed as part of that bundle of obligations). A
responsible actor may be seen as one whose job involves a predetermined set of obligations that
must be met in order for the job to be accomplished. For example, the primary functional
obligation of someone involved in media relations is the same as cited in the foregoing sentence:
to maintain a good working relationship with the media in order to respond to queries and to
successfully work with them to “get out the message.” In many cases, simply discharging this
primary obligation (the function associated with the role) may be sufficient unto itself; however,
responsibility can also include moral obligations that are in addition and usually related to the
functional obligations of the role. Thus, responsibility assumes that the actor becomes also a
moral agent possessed of a certain level of moral maturity and ability to reason. It is important to
note that as early as Aristotle, moral responsibility was viewed as originating with the moral
agent (decision maker), and grew out of an ability to reason (an awareness of action and
consequences) and a willingness to act free from external compulsion. For Aristotle, a decision is
a particular kind of desire resulting from deliberation, one that expresses the agent’s conception
of what is good. As Australian ethicist Will Barret points out,

Moral responsibility assumes a capacity for making rational decisions, which in turn
justifies holding moral agents accountable for their actions. Given that moral agency entails
responsibility, in that autonomous rational agents are in principle capable of responding to
2
moral reasons, accountability is a necessary feature of morality. For example, the moral
obligations of the role of a media relations specialist might include such admonitions as
“don’t lie to the media” and “use language responsibly, free from intentional obfuscation.”
These moral obligations are naturally joined to the parallel functional obligations associ-
ated with the role. Responsibility, then, is composed of a duty to discharge not only the
functional obligations of role, but also the moral obligations.
In addition, teleological (consequential) considerations tend to demand a level of
accountability commensurate with the level of responsibility. In other words, if it is the job of a
media relations specialist to carry out the primary functions outlined above, shouldn’t that person
be held accountable for mismanaged information, bad publicity, lack of credibility, or other trou-
bles associated with the functional obligations? If responsibility is defined as a bundle of
obligations, functional and moral, associated with a role, then accountability might be defined as
“blaming or crediting someone for an action”—normally an action associated with a recognized
3
responsibility. A problem arises, however, in that while responsibility and accountability are
often conflated, and admittedly importantly linked, they are not identical by definition or moral
implication.
According to ethics activist Geoff Hunt, accountability
 is the readiness or preparedness to give an explanation or justification to relevant others
(stakeholders) for one’s judgments, intentions, acts and omissions when appropriately called
upon to do so.

It is [also] a readiness to have one’s actions judged by others and, where appropriate, accept
responsibility for errors, misjudgments and negligence and recognition for competence,
conscientiousness, excellence and wisdom. It is a preparedness to change in the light of
4
improved understanding gained from others.

The simplest formula is that a person can be held accountable if (1) the person is functionally
and/or morally responsible for an action, (2) some harm occurred due to that action, and (3) the
responsible person had no legitimate excuse for the action. Ideally, the assumption would then be
to hold a person who is responsible for an action also accountable for the results of that action.
That, however, may not always be the case.
This position assumes that the responsible person is relatively autonomous, or free to make
decisions associated with his or her job without outside pressure or influence. And, under normal
circumstances, one would hope that public relations practitioners would have that autonomy.
However, the nature of autonomy often changes with the environment in which a public relations
person works, and is certainly affected by the role and the functions associated with that role.

Responsibility and Autonomy

Most professions stress autonomy among their members. Being able to perform work free from
interference (especially from those with less expertise) is vital to being a successful professional.
After all, most professionals are hired exactly because their expertise is needed. As philosopher
John Christman notes, to be autonomous, by most accounts, is to be oneself,

to be directed by considerations, desires, conditions, and characteristics that are not simply
imposed externally upon one, but are part of what can somehow be considered one’s
authentic self. Autonomy in this sense seems an irrefutable value, especially since its
opposite—being guided by forces external to the self and which one cannot authentically
5
embrace—seems to mark the height of oppression.

There are several ways to look at autonomy as it relates to responsibility and accountability.
Philosopher and ethicist Mitchell Haney suggests that the moral community is composed of two
kinds of actors: responsible actors and accountable actors. Responsibility is viewed within this
model as having a higher level of autonomy by nature in that it implies the actor is able to “self-
oversee, self-regulate, and self-motivate responsive adjustments to maintain adherence with
6
appropriate moral standards of action.”
“Responsible actors need not depend on external or mediated motivational pressure for
responsive adjustment. [They are] expected to be motivated to correct harms and reduce future
7
risk of harms without external or mediated pressure to do so.”
 Under this formulation, the actor (moral agent) has the capacity to impose moral law on
herself, thus achieving a level of “moral autonomy” we would hope to associate normally with
professional status. This somewhat Kantian model supposes that we understand ourselves as free,
reasoning individuals—invoking a mandate of both self-respect and respect for others (but not
control by others).
Freedom means lacking barriers to our action that are in any way external to our will, though it
also requires that we use a law to guide our decisions, a law that can come to us only by an act of
8
our own will. This self-imposition of the moral law is autonomy.
According to business ethicist Norman Bowie, if a person is a responsible, autonomous adult,
that person can be viewed as a moral agent, directly accountable for his or her actions. “A
responsible being is a being who can make choices according to his or her own insights. He or
9
she is not under the control of others.” On the other hand, the accountable actor is “held to
external oversight, regulation, and mechanisms of punishment aimed to externally motivate
responsive adjustment in order to maintain adherence with appropriate moral standards of
10
action.” This responsible-/accountable-actor model assumes a dichotomy in which responsible
actors, because of moral maturity, are capable of self-motivation in their responsive adjustments
for actions they have performed, while accountable actors must rely on external pressure (blame
or credit) for this adjustment. This is similar to the “consequentialist” versus “merit” positions on
moral responsibility. The consequentialist view holds that the actions of moral agents can be
influenced by outward expressions of praise or blame in order to affect certain behaviors
(accountable actors), while the merit view assumes moral agents can and do recognize their
11
choices and make their own decisions (responsible actors).
The theory of the accountable actor uses what might be termed a behaviorist approach, which
seems to suggest that people are motivated and shaped by forces external to themselves.
Certainly people are motivated, at least in part, by rewards and punishments; however, even
those considered accountable rather than responsible actors generally have a developed moral
sense and a fair idea of social conventions and moral principles. The problem arises when people
are affected by forces beyond their control, forces that may even affect the level at which they
reason. As philosopher and ethicist Kevin Gibson points out, “Indeed, in the presence of some
external factors, individuals may not actively reason at all, but work according to habit or
12
obedience without a thought.”
So, in addition to responsible actors being imbued with the ability and the freedom to make
self-regulating decisions, they are also able to motivate (free of outside pressure) their own
responsive adjustments to situations in which their decisions have had an impact. This is what
separates them from accountable actors, who must rely on external oversight for motivation to
respond and adjust. However, while this scenario may be appealing in theory, the ability to
respond based entirely on self-motivation (or autonomy) is also limited by role and environment.

Responsibility can be, and often is, determined by role; however, the environment in which the
public relations professional works and the degree of autonomy allowed by that environment
have a great deal to do with accountability. Chief among the commonly recognized environments
in which public relations practitioners work are agencies (or firms) or they might be employed as
full-time staff within an organization or corporation, or as independent counselors. Most public
relations practitioners, and many researchers, agree that the independent public relations counsel
13
enjoys the greatest degree of autonomy. Of all the roles in public relations, this is the only one
not subsumed within a larger, bureaucratic system—either corporate or agency. Clients hiring
such “independent” counselors usually do so out of need for autonomous, professional advice,
and by so doing accept the professional recommendations of that person as, at the very least,
sound opinion. Independent public relations counsel might be said to be the most autonomous of
the roles within the practice, if for no other reason than the lack of bureaucratic entanglements.
Because of the level of autonomy normally associated with this role, it may also be the most
professional of the roles within public relations. And, as Hunt points out, Part of the assumption
of advocacy is that the advocate takes up the client’s cause fully, without any value judgment
toward the client himself. Advocates use their expertise to advance a client’s cause. Thus,
advocacy often fits well into what is known as the “agency” model of the professional-client
15
relationship.

Under the agency model, a professional acts most often under the direction of the client. Public
relations firms, for instance, may put together elaborate campaigns to serve their client’s
interests; however, the client picks the agency, determines what exactly will be “marketed,” and
decides whether or not to use the ideas generated by the agency. The agency model most clearly
exemplifies what legal scholar W. H. Simon calls the “ideology of advocacy.” This ideology
assumes two principles of conduct: (1) that a professional is neutral or detached from the client’s
purposes, and (2) that the professional is an aggressive partisan of the client working to advance
16
the client’s ends. The argument is that advocacy is ideologically “blinded” to ethical
17
considerations outside those of the client. Such a construct thus allows professionals to absolve
themselves of moral responsibility for the client’s ethical shortcomings, thus shifting
accountability from the professional to the client. In addition, responsibility under this model is
mostly functional and links the professional to the client by an obligation to perform to the best
of her or his ability on the client’s behalf. To cite a moral responsibility here would generally
serve no practical purpose. Attorneys, for example, are bound only to observe the restraints of
law as they “zealously” advocate on their client’s behalf. Obviously, this ideology would work
well for professions such as the law, in which even unpopular causes would sometimes need to
be defended. Without such an ideology, these causes might go unrepresented. But what about
other professions such as public relations?

There are several reasons why the agency model is not suitable for most professions, including
public relations. First, public relations professionals are variously obligated morally. These
obligations cannot be discharged properly if all decisions are left to the client. Despite the
commonly voiced belief that the primary loyalty of public relations practitioners is to the client,
we know that significant moral concerns can arise from ignoring third parties. Second, the
agency model seriously decreases professional autonomy. Most professionals would object
strenuously to abdicating their decision-making authority. Finally, professionals may accept or
reject clients who do not meet their moral standards. According to ethicist Michael Bayles,
 18
“Professionals must . . . be ethically free and responsible persons.” The author Dorothy Emmet
has described a profession as that which “carries with it the notion of a standard of performance,
it is not only a way of making a living, but one in which the practitioners have a fiduciary trust to
maintain certain standards.” Aside from the expectations that a professional will possess a certain
technical ability, “professional competence has to be joined with professional integrity.” In other
19
words, “the more professional a job, the greater the responsibilities that go with it.”
Again, the definition of a professional has to carry with it the freedom of autonomy. The
German ethicist and philosopher Immanuel Kant stated as a categorical imperative that all
humans should be treated as ends and never merely as means. Broadly speaking, this can be
construed to mean that obligations arising out of agreements between professionals can be
assumed to have been the result of negotiations between responsible, autonomous adults.
Bivins argued that public relations practitioners operating as advocates may indeed be
“ethically free and responsible persons,” and suggested that advocacy may be an ethically
responsible activity if practiced from within what Bayles calls the “fiduciary” model of the
20
professional-client relationship. In fact, Bayles suggests that the fiduciary model of service best
21
fits the true role of the professional. In this model, a client’s consent and judgment are required
and he or she participates in the decision-making process. The key to the model is the nature of
the decision-making process in which the client consents to proposals rather than decides. For
the process to work, the client must trust the professional to accurately analyze the problem,
canvass the feasible alternatives, know as well as one can their likely consequences, fully convey
this information to the client, perhaps make a recommendation, and work honestly and loyally
22
for the client to effectuate the chosen alternatives. This model allows clients as much freedom
to determine how their lives are affected as is reasonably warranted on the basis of their ability to
make decisions. To the degree that the client is incapable of making an informed decision, it is
incumbent upon the professional to educate them to a point at which they are capable of decision
making on their own behalf. In this sense, the relationship between the professional and the
client might be said to be symmetric, requiring both mutual understanding and cooperation.
Clearly, this model must be based on a trust relationship, thus further obligating the professional
morally as well as functionally.
Under this model, it could be fairly stated that both the functional and moral responsibilities of
the public relations professional toward the client are discharged in consort with the client. But
what about the functional and moral responsibilities toward affected third parties? Practically all
professions recognize third-party obligations, and if advocacy is to be considered a legitimate
function of public relations, then there must be a way to recognize those moral responsibilities.
The function of advocacy, as it pertains to public relations, can remain a professional role
responsible to client interests, professional interests, and third-party interests only if the
professional includes a preliminary stage in the process of accepting a client’s issue. Under the
fiduciary model described above, the public relations professional as potential advocate may be
hired, for example, because of her or his expertise in the field of audience analysis, knowledge of
the most efficacious persuasive techniques, and the proper methods of dissemination. It is
generally accepted that the first job of public relations professionals is to establish a thorough
understanding of the issue that they may be addressing on behalf of the potential client. Without
that assessment, no professional should ethically proceed to undertake the role of advocate and
the moral responsibility that role implies. Thus, a proper ordering of priorities would place a
thorough understanding of the issue at the top of the list preceding any attempt at campaign
development or even audience analysis.
The role of autonomous professional assumes a certain level of objectivity in the sense of an
ability, in the Kantian implication of the term, to use reason to determine action.
As Australian philosopher Will Barrett points out,

The sources of moral responsibility—the grounds on which moral responsibilities can be

ascribed to agents—include our past actions, our roles, and our developed moral agency.
The last of these—being capable of recognizing [sic] the force of moral reasons, and of
responding to them—is a pre-requisite for the other two sources of moral responsibility, and
23
so of accountability [emphasis added].

By contrast, the role of advocate assumes a certain amount of subjectivity in the sense of one-
sidedness of purpose and lack of consideration for third-party interests. However, objectivity and
subjectivity, although often at odds, are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and the public
relations professional may, in fact, be both objective and subjective. The key is the order of
approach. Objectivity, or the capability and freedom to be objective, is certainly one of the
benefits of autonomy, and should be brought to bear in the early stages of counseling the client—
the period in which a thorough understanding of the issue is obtained. It is during this stage that
the public relations professional will determine the ramifications of the proposed actions and
their effect on all parties. During this stage, the public relations professional may apply any of
several applicable ethical theories to the proposed act in order to determine if the act itself
(means) and the outcome (ends) are morally responsible. Deontologically (dealing with the
means), several standards may be applied, including a determination of the legality of the act
(whether it violates existing laws or applicable regulations), company procedures and policies or
organizational codes, and any codes or standards existing for the profession—in this case, the
Public Relations Society of America’s Code of Ethics. Although this procedure will merely
provide professionals with guidelines, assuming that all that is legally or professionally
permissible may not be ethically permissible, these will at least allow them to advance to
succeeding evaluative stages.
Teleologically (dealing with the consequences, or ends), public relations professionals may
apply standard cost-benefit analysis to the issue, determining the potential financial
consequences of the act to the client and the affected third parties. Beyond these monetary
considerations, they may attempt to determine societal effects. If, after such applications,
professionals determine that the act itself, the intent of the act, and the potential consequences of
the act are morally acceptable, then they may proceed with a clear conscience to the succeeding
“subjective” stages of advocacy. From this point on, the objective, professional public relations
counselor may become the subjective, professional public relations advocate.
Thus, the requirements of subjective advocacy may be honorably met only after the ethical
requirements of objective counseling are met. To insinuate that advocacy may take place without
a predetermination of the morality of the issue being decided upon is to subscribe to the ideology
of advocacy that W.H. Simon denounces. For the truly professional public relations practitioner,
the order of decision making is all-important, because responsibilities differ as roles shift from
counseling to advocacy, as does attendant accountability.
Public relations professionals must first work from the framework of a fiduciary model of the
client-professional relationship in which autonomy is, more or less, equally divided between the
contracted parties (responsibility and accountability are shared). They must then undertake to
determine objectively the ethicality of the action being proposed, considering both means and
ends. Only when the morality of the action has been determined should the advisor become the
advocate, acting subjectively in the client’s exclusive interest, but with responsibility and
accountability shifting to weigh more heavily on the professional. Even then, considerable
attention needs to be given to the morality of the message itself and to the techniques by which it
is to be disseminated. This ordering of stages from the objective to the subjective will allow the
professional public relations practitioner to perform all the necessary functions ascribed to the
roles of the profession without either falling into the trap of ideological advocacy or succumbing
to a less autonomous position. Ideally, responsibility and accountability would then coincide.

Ethicist and theologian Marvin Brown describes two ways of approaching the subject of ethics in
organizations—the “individualistic approach” and what might be called the “communal
24
approach.” Each approach incorporates a different view of moral responsibility. According to
Brown, discussions about ethics in organizations typically reflect only the “individualistic
approach” to moral responsibility. “According to this approach, every person in an organization
is morally responsible for his or her own behavior, and any efforts to change that behavior
should focus on the individual.” By contrast, the “communal approach” views individuals not in
isolation, but as “members of communities that are partially responsible for the behavior of their
members.” Herein lies the key to understanding the problems associated with assigning
responsibility and accountability within organizations.
Complex organizations tend toward decentralized decision making, which, ideally, would
25
require professionalized decision makers at every level. The ideal would be for both the
responsibility and the accountability of decision making to correlate. However, as they become
more complex and decentralized, these same organizations also lend themselves too readily to a
dilution of accountability in decision making. Moral “buck passing” often becomes the rule
rather than the exception. It is too easy to blame others for decisions over which we have had
minimal input or control. When the public relations function is subsumed within a large,
complex organization, decision making can become attenuated and accountability spread thin. In
a very real sense, the structure of large organizations tends to affect the way in which decisions
are made. Furthermore, the temptation to pass the buck on decisions of all types, including moral
26
decisions, increases mightily as the organizational hierarchy becomes more complex. In fact,
the traditional hierarchical structure of most organizations lends itself naturally to blockages in
communication.
Understanding is generally developed within organizations through the realization of effective
communication flow. The typical “flow” brings task-related (functional) communication through
many levels before it reaches its intended receiver. As messages travel downward through the
organizational hierarchy, they have a tendency to become less clear and, in some cases, actually
distorted. Research has repeatedly shown that distortions such as those that occur during “serial
27
transmission” damage message integrity. In addition, factors such as personality type and an
individual’s power, status, and role also greatly affect the integrity of both communication
28
channels and the communication itself. Partly because of the tendency of communication to
become distorted as organizational hierarchies increase in complexity, assigning responsibility
and accountability likewise becomes more difficult as the organization becomes more complex.
It may be that corporations, like individuals, do not set out to do wrong— they are simply driven
by egoism (acting in their own self-interest). But, as professional ethicist Gabriel Moran points
out,
Corporations, like natural persons, have inner divisions and an unconscious (the company
design) from which most decisions emanate. Corporations . . . live by habit, by doing what
they always do. But there are people in the company—supervisors, managers,
administrators, executives—who are paid to be conscious of what the company is doing.
Even when a result is not intended, the company is responsible for the effect if it did know
29
of the effect or could have known.

The in-house public relations function is undoubtedly the most problematic for assigning
responsibility and accountability. The level of autonomy and the weight of decision making, and
thus professionalism, will vary depending on whether the head of the department is a middle-
level manager, an upper-level manager, or an executive. Thus, owing to the nature of corporate
bureaucracy, the public relations practitioner subsumed within an organization may be
nonautonomous or, at best, slightly autonomous. The groundwork is then laid for a decision-
making hierarchy that may gradually dilute the authority of public relations practitioners to
follow their own personal and professional directives.
In addition, the dilution of decision-making authority is more common in larger organizations,
in which practitioners may often serve as employees rather than truly autonomous professionals.
However, even this reduction in autonomy does not reduce a public relations practitioner’s
responsibility to act ethically—it only makes the lines of responsibility less clear. As PR
professionals and agency principals Bruce Klatt and Shaun Murphy remind us, accountability is
a “statement of personal promise.”
Accountability applies only to individuals, and is both a personal promise and obligation, to
yourself and to others, to deliver specific, defined results. Being accountable within an
organization means you agree to be operationally defined as the sole agent for an outcome,
regardless of the often-inadequate level of authority or control that you have been formally
30
assigned by the organization.
Less autonomous practitioners must also determine the ethicality of their actions; even though
the major difference between them and their more independent counterparts, the degree of
autonomy, may inhibit the extent to which practitioners may object to actions they determine are
less than ethical. Obviously, independent counselors may advise, and thereby object, from a
much stronger position than their counterparts subsumed either within an organization or an
agency.
The primary problem is that the tendency toward moral buck passing will not lessen as long as
organizational hierarchy encourages the dilution of responsibility and accountability. This now-
too-common dilution of accountability frustrates onlookers who can’t determine who is to blame
when something goes wrong. The tendency to place blame is entirely normal; however, the
degree of accuracy involved in assessing accountability is problematic at best.

Section 2: Blame, Responsibility and Causation

Time allocation 2 credit hours
In this section, we will discuss about blame, responsibility and causation. We will also look at
the challenges that we may face in blaming individuals for their actions and their causes.

Session objectives:
After you have completed studying this section, you will be able to:
-understand what blame is.
-.identify different causes of blame
-explain responsibility and blame from the angle of professional ethics view.

Brainstorming:
? Dear learner, what is Blame and what points do you think relates it with
responsibility? And what is causation?
CAUSAL AND LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES
Causal Responsibility: consists simply in being a cause of some event. E.g. lightning as being responsible
for a house catching fire.
Legal Responsibility: consists simply in being a cause for harm that was so unlikely and also
unforeseeable that no moral responsibility is involved.
ACCOUNTABILITY:
Responsible people accept moral responsibility for their actions.
Accountability is the willingness to submit one’s actions to moral scrutiny and be open and responsive to
the assessment of others.
It should be understood as being culpable and blameworthy for misdeeds.

Submission to an employer’s authority creates in many people a narrow sense of accountability for the
consequences of their action. This is because of
i) Only a small contribution is made by one individual, when large scale engineering work is fragmented.
The final product which is far away from one’s immediate workplace, does not give a proper
understanding of the consequences of one’s action.
ii) Due to the fragmentation of work, a vast diffusion of accountability takes place. The area of personal
accountability is delimited to the portion of work being carried out by one.
iii) The pressure to move on to another new project does not allow one to complete the observations long
enough. This makes people accountable only for meeting schedules and not for the consequences of
action.
iv) To avoid getting into legal issues, engineers tend to concentrate more on legal liabilities than the
containment of the potential risks involved in their area of work.

Viewing engineering as a social experimentation makes one overcome these difficulties and see the
problem in whole rather than as part.

Unaccountable people are into excuses, blaming others, putting things off, doing the minimum,
acting confused, and playing helpless. They pretend ignorance while hiding behind doors,
computers, paperwork, jargon, and other people. They say things like “I didn’t know,” “I wasn’t
there,” “I don’t have time,” “It’s not my job,” “That’s just the way I am,” “Nobody told me,” “It
isn’t really hurting anyone,” and “I’m just following orders.” Unaccountable people are quick to
31
complain and slow to act. In organizations, unaccountability is a highly contagious disease.
In order to protect ourselves and keep our self-image intact, we often choose to rationalize our
decisions. Rationalize, in this sense, means “to devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for a
particular behavior.” It is, therefore, crucial that we understand our reasons for preferring one
action over another and to admit them to ourselves. Unless we understand our real reasons, we
will be content to rationalize our actions by using other means— most often adopting moral
32
excuses or assigning the blame to others.
 As Aristotle pointed out, people deserve blame for their wrongful conduct. Contemporary
philosopher Laurence Stern agrees, noting that “[f]or immoral acts which are not sufficiently
serious to warrant inflicting harm [punishment]—as well as for all other immoral acts committed
33
without excuse—one can say that the person deserves blame.” In fact, it’s only when a person
has a good excuse that we tend not to hold him accountable, and Stern suggests that a recognition
of the moral excuses common in everyday life tends to minimize the overall harm of the act
34
itself. Of course, there are good excuses and there are bad excuses. Among the excuses people
tend to identify as not legitimate are those most often associated with external factors and the
dilution of responsibility, frequently a result of organizational hierarchy. As Gibson points out,
[I]t is important to consider the types of external factors that may influence our individual
choices when we are faced with ethical dilemmas. Simple awareness of their existence and the
35
ways in which they exert influence on our behaviors may be enough to lessen their power.

Gibson further defines an excuse as “something that acknowledges that a wrong action
occurred but seeks to show that the perpetrator deserves little or no responsibility for the action.”
36
Among the most common “pass the buck” excuses are the following.
I was told to do it, or I was only following orders. This excuse may be given more often than
any other in hierarchically structured organizations such as big corporations and larger
institutions like the military. The need to follow orders is obviously important in these
hierarchical organizations and institutions. For one thing, it tends to bring consistency to an
operation. Obedience to those whom we consider to be experts or who possess superior judgment
is usually considered a good thing. The downside is the inclination to allow authority figures to
make decisions for us. It relieves us of the stress of deciding for ourselves, and of the
accountability that comes with autonomy. While the excuse of “just following orders” is more
commonplace inside larger, corporate-like structures in which individual autonomy is diluted,
public relations practitioners who work within the agency model are not immune to its lure. It is
often much too easy to blame the client who, after all, is technically giving the orders. However,
the likelihood of this excuse surfacing is much greater in hierarchically structured organizations.
The moral standing of the order itself is less likely to be questioned if there is a strong belief in
the efficacy of a hierarchical organizational structure and a trust of those in power. The human
tendency to obey orders has been empirically tested time and again. Blind obedience to authority,
regardless of the moral rightness or wrongness of the orders, almost seems to be the norm.
However, even in the most formal hierarchically structured institution, the military, rules have
been updated to reflect increased moral accountability. It is now clear, under military law, that
“military members can be held accountable for crimes committed under the guise of ‘obeying
37
orders,’ and there is no requirement to obey orders which are unlawful.” In other words,
claiming ignorance of the immorality of the order doesn’t excuse us from moral accountability.
People are individually responsible regardless of orders. As Gibson notes, “Ultimately we must
take personal responsibility for our acts, and cannot shrug them off as inevitable or by saying
that we are mere instruments of others’ will.” The scholars Deni Elliot and Paul Lester agree,
pointing out that “as long as you are free to act in a voluntary or autonomous way, moral
responsibility for your actions are not transferable to someone else. Your boss can take away
38
your job, but not your moral agency.”
It was my job. Professionals commonly justify their actions by appeal to the requirements of
their professional roles. In his book Ethics for Adversaries, Harvard professor Arthur Applbaum
describes an official who was an executioner for the French government. He accepted without
question the functional responsibility of his role, and discharged it with great alacrity. However,
he never once questioned the moral legitimacy of his role nor the propriety of the executions
39
themselves.
It is not unusual for public relations professionals, for example, to claim that they are acting
within legal bounds on behalf of clients on whom they refuse to pass moral judgment (the
“ideology of advocacy”). It is, after all, their job to serve the client’s wishes competently with all
their professional expertise being brought to bear on the issue. As noted earlier, however, blind
obedience to another’s wishes is not an excuse for unethical action, especially by professionals
who have a responsibility to more than just a client. This is also why most professions have a
code of ethics: to ensure that members are clear on what the profession expects of them outside
client interests.
When less-than-ethical tactics are used to serve a client’s purpose, the excuse is often that it is
the job of the public relations professional to serve that interest “zealously.” The public relations
firm of Hill and Knowlton used questionable tactics on behalf of Kuwait during the first Gulf
War, a clear example of this category.
Everybody’s doing it. This is a formulation of what is called “ethical relativism,” which states,
among other things, that whatever the group you belong to says is right is probably right. Human
beings possess a natural tendency to conform to the group. Just look around and observe what
others are wearing. How close in style is it to what you are wearing? At its worst, this tendency
to conform can lead to a shirking of individual moral responsibility, or even a lack of recognition
that such a thing exists. A poor record on protecting whistle-blowers doesn’t help in this area
either. However, conventional wisdom doesn’t necessarily equate with being right. As John
Stuart Mill noted in the nineteenth century, it may be that the one person who disagrees with a
widely held point of view is the only person who is morally correct. Consider also the acts
perpetrated against Jews and others by the Nazis prior to and during World War II. Certainly
there were those within Germany who disagreed. But it is also certain that there were a great
many who agreed because “everybody was doing it.” However, there is a certain degree of
empowerment associated with seeing even one individual disagree with the establishment point
of view—an empowerment to trust and act on one’s own convictions. Dissenting voices can be
powerful tools in determining the right action. They should never be discouraged.
An odd formulation of this excuse is the tendency to follow the industry trend. For example,
throughout much of the 1990s into the twenty-first century, there was a sense that simply
denying facts was a legitimate approach to public relations. Victor Kiam, the entrepreneur who
purchased Remington Razors and part ownership in the New England Patriots, denied he had
made a sexist remark about a female reporter wanting access to the Patriots’ locker room.
Firestone denied any problems with its tires in 1999, even though there were numerous fatalities
linked to their failure under high-speed conditions. And both Arthur Andersen and Enron spent a
great deal of time denying that anything was wrong while both companies literally self-
destructed. While this is certainly poor public relations, when everyone seems to be doing it, the
temptation to follow suit is sometimes overwhelming.
My actions won’t make any difference. This excuse is often used as a way of explaining the
futility many of us feel as part of an organization or institution over which we have very little
control. It also leads to the parallel excuse that “if I hadn’t done it, they would simply have found
someone else who would have.” In answer to the “I can’t make a difference” argument, just ask
the people in the state of Washington how they feel about whether their vote counts or not. In the
2004 gubernatorial election, they selected a new governor by fewer than 150 votes.
The second part of this excuse basically assumes there will always be someone with less
scruples than you who will step in to take your place at a moment’s notice to do the dirty work.
However, this assumption negates the possibility that you might actually counter the moral
wrong. If you are working on a public relations campaign for a tobacco account, for example,
you may be correct in assuming that someone else will probably eagerly take your place if you
refuse to do the work; however, your action may inspire others to do the same, and if you then
lend your talents to an antismoking campaign, you have further justified your action. It’s not my
problem. The poet John Dunne once famously observed that “no man is an island.” Individuals
are responsible for their actions, or inactions, and their effect on others. Each hand that
contributes to a chain of corruption within an organization helps forge a link of that chain. Even
if we are not directly in the line of responsibility, there may be times when an issue is important
enough to act on a broader moral obligation.
Public relations professionals are also bound by an obligation to third parties, their profession
as a whole, and to themselves to preserve their own integrity. Remember, you may be painted
with the same broad brush of dishonor as those you work for, even if you weren’t directly
responsible.
No one else knew. As ethicist Deni Elliot says, “Ethics is a first person activity.” You know
when you’ve done something wrong. You know if the people you work for are doing something
wrong or are hiding a misdeed. As least you ought to know, especially if you are working in
public relations. No matter what your standing within the hierarchy, you have a responsibility to
your own integrity, regardless of who else knows.

Section 3: Individual Responsibilities and Accountability

Time allocation 2 credit hours
In this section, we will discuss about individual responsibility and accountability. As such, we
will try to deeply understand personal responsibility separate from collective responsibilities.

Session objectives:
After you have completed studying this section, you will be able to:
-recognize individual responsibilities.
-differentiate individual responsibility and accountability.
-explain personal accountability in relation to individual responsibility.

Brainstorming:
? Dear learner, what is individual Responsibility and what relation does it have with
accountability? Or are they one and the same?
Although the various roles of public relations carry with them distinctly different sets of
obligations, they have in common the overriding obligation to perform within an accepted moral
framework. That framework may be provided by the profession (as a code of professional
standards), by the organization for which a practitioner works (as a corporate code or simply by
the corporate culture itself), or by personal ethical standards. Each of these plays a part in
creating the moral ground from which a true professional makes decisions.
The degree of autonomy changes with the various roles and the environment in which public
relations is practiced, greatly affecting accountability. For example, the role of advocate carries
with it a primary responsibility to serve the client’s purpose. This, in itself, is not, nor should it
be considered, necessarily negative. Loyalty is a much-desired characteristic in employees, and
as long as the moral climate of the organization within which the employee operates is conducive
to the well-being of most of the parties affected by that organization’s actions, that loyalty is not
misplaced. However, if responsibility and accountability are not equitably shared and if the
process by which they are assigned is not transparent, then problems will arise. Less autonomous
actors still have responsibilities associated with their roles; however, those responsibilities will
typically be dictated by their clients or employers. This is especially important to understand if
the public relations practitioner works within a hierarchically structured environment. The more
bureaucratic the structure, the more likely that problems with assigning accountability will occur.
We must realize that not every actor is blameworthy, especially if the actor’s autonomy is limited
by structure, process, or circumstance. Likewise, accountability for actions may be lessened as
autonomy is eroded by either role or environment. However, lack of autonomy is not an excuse
for avoiding accountability entirely. Only legitimate moral excuses hold actors not accountable
and only then under a fairly narrow range of conditions.
While tracing the lines of responsibility and accountability can be difficult, in the end, if one is
responsible in any way for an action, then one must accept some degree of accountability.
“Individuals are ultimately the authors and arbiters of their actions, for better or worse, and
44
therefore retain ultimate responsibility for what they do.” While it is gratifying to see someone
like Harry Truman willing to take ultimate responsibility for actions carried out on his watch,
this type of magnanimity doesn’t absolve others of their part in the actions that are calling for
accountability. It is also difficult in these times to find a Harry Truman among those top
executives who are so adept at making excuses and passing the buck. The role of public relations
in general, regardless of environment, is not only to provide a professional service, but also to act
with attention to the highest ethical standards. While there are certainly legitimate excuses that
can be used, public relations professionals should have no need for them if they are doing their
jobs properly. Accountability in the professional context is about answering to clients,
professional colleagues and other relevant professionals. The demand to give an account of one’s
judgments, acts and omissions arises from the nature of the professional-client and the
14
professional-professional relationships.

However, a public relations is not just a counseling profession; it can also be said to be an
advocacy-oriented practice. To advocate is to take up the cause of another and to work on that
other’s behalf to promote that cause. One of the key differences between the roles of advocate
and counselor is the degree of autonomy allowed to each by the nature of the role. Remember,
the general assumption is that autonomy is a highly valued component of professionalism;
however, for the advocate, autonomy is not particularly valued or desired. In fact, for the
advocate, a more desirable trait might be loyalty.
Most businesspeople would argue that loyalty is indeed one of the chief duties of an employee,
and, in fact, being a “team player” is highly regarded in the business world. As a team player, the
public relations practitioner is generally expected to follow the directions of the team leader
without argument. Thus, advocates are expected to be subjective—that is the nature of advocacy.
Subjectivity brings with it an implicit understanding that one’s first allegiance is to the client, or
employer. To advocates fall the job of bringing skills of persuasion to bear through methods and
on issues often predetermined by management. Since they had no hand in arriving at either the
focus or the nature of their advocacy, can they be expected to consider the broader implications
of their actions? And, to what degree are they accountable for unjust or immoral acts in which
they may have been used as instruments?
Section 4: Impediments to Reasonable Action
Time allocation 2 credit hours
In this section, we will discuss about some impediments to reasonable action. So we will
mention challenges and problems to reasonable action.

Session objectives:
After you have completed studying this section, you will be able to:
-identify impediments to reasonable action.
-understand about reasonable action.
-recognize challenges to reasonable action.

Brainstorming:
? Dear learner, what are impediments to reasonable action? Are their sources from certain
individuals or from groups as a whole?
IMPEDIMENTS TO RESPONSIBILITY
• Self-interest.
• Fear.
• Self-deception.
• Ignorance.
• Egocentric tendencies.
• Microscopic vision.
• Groupthink.
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
Being morally responsible as a professional.
Most basic and comprehensive professional virtue.
Creation of useful and safe technological products while respecting the autonomy of clients and public,
especially in matters of risk taking.

But what if it really wasn’t your fault? Most of us recognize a legitimate excuse when we hear
one. Gibson suggests that the two most commonly accepted “excusing conditions” that allow a
reduction in responsibility are ignorance involving fact and the inability to have done
40
otherwise. In legal theory, there are several explanations of criminal law’s “excuse doctrines.”
Chief among them is “causal theory,” which makes two general claims: The first is that the
criminal law presumes that some human acts are caused by forces beyond the actor’s control.
The second is that the criminal law adheres to the “control principle,” the moral principle that
actors cannot be blamed for conduct caused by forces beyond their control. According to causal
theory, these two premises explain a host of the criminal law’s excuses—including (for example)
the involuntary act doctrine, the irresistible impulse defense, and the duress defense. The law
grants these defenses, causal theory says, because (1) it presumes that the excused conduct is
41
caused by forces beyond the actor’s control, and (2) such conduct is not blameworthy.
In fact, there are several widely agreed upon excuses that are typically accepted as valid when
assessing accountability.
Excusable ignorance of consequences. People tend to forgive in instances in which the
outcome of an action could not reasonably have been predicted. Note that this doesn’t excuse one
from knowing right from wrong. “Traditional morality and jurisprudence typically excuse
persons for ignorance involving fact. Both traditional morality and established law tend not to
42
recognize excuses grounded on ignorance of principle.” What this does accept is that it is often
difficult to predict the outcome of some actions. Utilitarianism, for instance, directs that
outcomes be predicted, but does not insist that they be exhaustively predicted. One can make
educated predictions but cannot foretell the future in the sense of owning a crystal ball.
Say, for example, that you own a garden store and you sell twenty-five pounds of fertilizer to a
customer you have never seen before. He then uses it to make a bomb with which he blows up a
local police station. Are you accountable? Unless there is a reasonable expectation that you could
have predicted that particular use of your product, the answer is usually no. We don’t expect
people to imagine every possible outcome of their everyday actions. No one would ever get
anything done out of sheer worry if that were the case. However, we do expect people to make
reasonable predictions, especially if they know their actions will affect other people. For
example, a public relations campaign has been designed to bring attention to a suburban
community in order to attract businesses to the area. As a result, businesses begin to move into
the community; however, so does increased traffic (predictable), increased property costs
(likewise predictable), and increased crime (maybe not so predictable). Can we say that the
public relations firm is responsible for the increase in crime? We might—especially if there is a
recognized history of crime being associated with community growth. Urban planners are
acutely aware of such statistics. Why shouldn’t a PR firm be?
For the most part, people recognize a legitimate excuse when they hear one, and truly
unpredictable consequences are usually recognized as such. However, a false claim of ignorance
is likewise easily identified. For example, when the British sports gear manufacturer Umbro
decided to name its newest running shoe the “Zyklon,” they ran into some unsuspected resis-
tance. Zyklon literally means “cyclone” in German; however, a number of parties pointed out that
during World War II, Zyklon B was the name of the gas used to exterminate millions of Jews in
concentration camps. Umbro answered the outrage by expressing ignorance and claiming
43
coincidence.
External constraints. Constraint refers to physical imperatives, lack of alternatives, and
uncontrollable circumstances. For example, if a person is coerced into doing something that he
normally would not do, we tend not to blame him for that action. A bank clerk who is robbed at
gunpoint is certainly responsible for the money in his till, but is not accountable for its loss. This
is a physical constraint. The same would apply in a situation in which a person is constrained by
a lack of alternatives. For instance, a company is ordered to comply with new EPA regulations,
but the technology needed to comply hasn’t been fully developed yet. The company cannot be
held accountable for noncompliance until the technology is ready to go on line (as long as the
company is attempting to comply in a timely fashion). Uncontrollable circumstances or, as we
usually say, “circumstances beyond our control,” is the third area of constraint-as-excuse. For
example, if a person fails to make an important meeting because her flight was canceled, others
can excuse her—even though they might be put out by the delay. Remember, however, that
causal theory holds people blameless only if their actions were truly beyond their control. If you
miss a meeting because you were involved in an accident (your car was hit by someone running
a stop sign), you can be held blameless. However, if you are the person who ran the stop sign,
you are to blame—both for the accident and for missing the meeting.
Internal compulsion. The law holds, and most people agree, that some actions are caused by
inner compulsion. This is actually another version of constraint, except that is not caused
externally. For example, the law recognizes as legitimate such excuses as kleptomania (a
compulsion to steal), pyromania (a compulsion to set fires), and some types of addictions (gam-
bling, eating, etc.) not caused physically as are drug or tobacco addiction. While this particular
category of excuses may not totally satisfy, people do tend to accept them as valid.
The point is that excuses are defenses against either having to take responsibility for an action
or being blamed unjustly for an action. The former defenses are typically referred to as bad
excuses, the latter as good excuses. Ultimately, excuses are reasons and are based on the rational
ability of those in a position to judge to decide on the level of accountability. Excuses mitigate
harm, but they do not erase it.

Summary of the unit:

Self check exercise:
References:
Unit Five
Honesty, Integrity and Reliability
Introduction
In the preceding chapters we discussed the basic components of professional ethics, including,
the definition of basic concepts like ethics, profession, applied ethics, ethics, ethical decision
making and responsibility. We turn now to an overview of some of the broad areas in which
professional ethics is commonly used in our daily lives. So, we will look at concepts such as
honesty, integrity, and reliability that we encounter in our daily lives.
Objectives:
After completing the study of this unit, you will be able to:
-Define honesty, integrity, and reliability.
-Observe forms of dishonesty.
-Familiarize with ways of using wrong truth.
-Understand confidentiality in client professional relation.
-Identify conflict of interest.
Section 1: Forms of Dishonesty
Time allocation 2 credit hours
In this section, we will discuss forms of dishonesty. We will also look at the detail of this
concept in professional ethics context.

Session objectives:
After you have completed studying this section, you will be able to:
-define honesty, dishonesty, and truth.
-identify different forms of dishonesty.
-recognize dishonesty as one of ethical challenge.

Brainstorming:
? Dear learner, what is Dishonesty and what relation does it have with truth?
1. Lying
Intentionally or knowingly convey false or misleading information.
(i) A lie involves something false or misleading,
(ii) Ordinarily stated in words,
(iii) The intention is to deceive.
2. Deliberate Deception
 Leading persons to false conclusions without necessarily telling lies.
3. Withholding Information Concealing facts intentionally for personal or other reasons.
4. Failing to Adequately Promote the Dissemination of Information
Not properly informing the public, superiors, colleagues, etc. about the facts or the reality (such
as possible harms or dangers).
5. Failure to Seek Out the Truth
For example, irresponsible use of inconclusive data without conducting further tests or
collecting sufficient amount of information.
6. Revealing Confidential or Proprietary Information
Disclosing confidential information without consent.
Violation of proprietary information.
7. Allowing one’s Judgment to be corrupted
Decisions influenced by conflicts of interest, personal gains, egoism, etc.
Section 2: Why is Dishonesty Wrong?
Time allocation 2 credit hours
In this section, we will discuss about why dishonesty is wrong. We will also look at the detail of
reasons those make dishonesty wrong.

Session objectives:
After you have completed studying this section, you will be able to:
-understand why dishonesty is wrong.
-recognize facts those make dishonesty wrong.
-observe whether dishonesty is really wrong.

Brainstorming:
? Dear learner, why is dishonesty wrong?

Total honesty in social life is equivalent to brutal frankness.

Total honesty in professional life leaves no way to exercise confidentiality and protect proprietary
information.
However apart from reasonable exceptions dishonesty and misuse of truth are wrong and unacceptable.
From the Respect for Persons perspective dishonesty violates the moral agency of individuals by causing
them to make (or influenced by) decisions without informed consent.
From the Utilitarian perspective dishonesty can undermine the mutual trust among the scientific
community hence informed decision making, thus impeding the development of technology.
Honesty on Campus
Three senior year students came up with an intelligent gauge which continuously measures petrol
consumption (before the use of Information Technology in automobiles). But to prove the workability of
the gauge they needed a flow meter to measure the oil input to the engine.
Their supervisor impressed by the design ordered the purchase of a flow-meter and encouraged the
students to draft an article.
Soon the professor received an acceptance letter of the submitted article (coauthored by himself) from the
editor of the journal. But: The students did not ask permission from the professor to use his name. The
flow-meter hadn’t arrived yet, so the paper was not ready for submission. The students in their excitement
without telling their professor had finished the article in absence of the flow-meter. They had to invent
some simulated data to be used as their test results and submitted their findings (as if complete) as a paper
to a journal editor. They were sure that the results they would obtain after the arrival of the flow meter
would match with their simulated data so they didn’t see anything wrong in submitting their paper to the
editor.
After the flow-meter arrived it turned out that the simulated output did not actually match with what they
obtained from the flow-meter .
Results?
The students; _ incorrectly assumed the flow,
_ made false assumptions about the response of the professor to their actions,
_ the paper was withdrawn from the journal, and they sent an apology letter to the journal,
_ Copies of the letter were placed in their files,
_ Received “F” in the senior design (graduation project)
Graduation delayed 6 months.

Integrity in Engineering Research and Testing

_ Varieties of dishonesty in Science and Engineering
_ Trimming: smoothing of irregularities of data to make it look like accurate and precise.
_ Cooking: retaining only those results which fit into the theory.
_ Forging: inventing some or all research data which are reported without properly carrying out
experimentation.
_ Plagiarism: using intellectual property of others without proper permission or credit.
_ Multiple authorship of a research article can become a controversial issue. Examples of improper co-
authoring include:
_ Sometimes names are included as co-authors who actually deserve acknowledgement.
_ senior professors with minimal contribution can be listed as co-authors.
_ other cases in which almost no contribution of the co-author exists.
Integrity in the Use of Intellectual Property
_ Intellectual Property is the outcome of Mental Labor.

Intellectual Property can be protected by:

_ Trade secrets.
_ Patents.
_ Trademarks.
_ Copyrights.
_ Line drawing approach can be very helpful to resolve whether an act constitutes breach of Intellectual
Property rights or not.
_ Trade secrets
_ Formulas, patterns, devices or compiled information used in business to gain advantage over the
competitors. Trade secrets are not in the public domain because trade secrets aren’t protected by patents.
_ Patents
_ Documents issued by the government to allow the owner of the patent to exclude others making use of
that information for 20 years of time. Secrecy not necessary!

_ To obtain a patent, the invention must be new, useful and no obvious .

_ Trademarks
_ Words, phrases, designs, sounds, symbols associated with goods or services.
_ Copyrights
_ Rights to creative products such as books, pictures, graphics, sculpture, music, movies, computer

programs .
_ the owner retains the copyright for 50 years after his/her death.
Copyrights protect the ownership of the ideas, but not the ideas themselves. These ideas can be referred

with proper citation or used with permission from the owner .

Sample Cases on Integrity in the Use of Intellectual Property
Case 1: Bill has developed innovative production techniques at Road rubber. He receives a senior
management position by a competing company Slippery Tire. Bill had signed an agreement with Road
rubber not to use any of the ideas he developed or learned there for duration of two years after he quits
Road rubber. After a few months of his employment at Slippery he is asked to reveal some of the secret
processes used by Road rubber.
This is an attempt to steal information from a rival company. There are reasons to suspect that Bill was
offered this job for the sole purpose of getting hold of the production secrets of Road rubber. This is a
clear violation of ethical principle that says, professionals shall not attempt to attract a profession from
another employer by false or misleading pretenses.”
Not all cases are as clear as the one above .
Case 2: Betty has developed some useful production at Road rubber. She moves to a non-competing
company Rubber boat. Betty comes up with a new process at Rubber boat but she realizes that this new
process is based on her earlier work at Road rubber. The processes are quite different and two companies
do not manufacture similar products.
Professionals shall not reveal facts, data or information obtained in a professional capacity without the
prior consent of the client or employer except as authorized or required by law or principle.
Rules of Professional Conduct:
Betty should tell the management at Rubber boat to enter into licensing negotiations with Road rubber.
Some cases can be even less clear: (1) Betty’s ideas were of no use to
Road rubber, (2) she didn’t even mention her findings to anyone at
Road rubber, (3) she didn’t use the facilities of Road rubber, (4) Betty developed the ideas during the
week-ends at home .
Resolving Cases on Integrity in the Use of
Intellectual Property by Line-Drawing
Case 1: Tom designs automobile brakes at Ford and he learns a lot about heat transfer and materials.
Later, Tom moves to GM where he applies his knowledge of heat transfer and materials to design
engines. Is Tom stealing Ford’s intellectual property?
Feature Positive Test Case Neg.
Generic Info. Yes-------------------------------- X No
Differ. Applic. Yes --------------------------------X No
Info protected No--------------------------------- X Yes
as Trade Secret
This is generic scientific knowledge, hence not the property of Ford.
Furthermore application area is different .
Case 2: Tom designs automobile brakes at Ford and he learns a lot about heat transfer and materials.
Later, Tom moves to GM where he applies his knowledge of heat transfer and materials to design
automobile brakes. Is Tom stealing Ford’s intellectual property?
Feature Positive Test Case Neg.
Generic Info. Yes------------------------------------- X No
Differ. Applic. Yes -------------------------------------X No
Info protected No-------------------------------------- X Yes
as Trade Secret
This is generic scientific knowledge, hence not the property of Ford (although application area is same).
Case 3: Tom designs automobile brakes at Ford. While working for Ford Tom helps develop a brake
lining which lasts twice as long as conventional brake linings. Ford decides to keep the formula for this
brake lining as a trade secret.
Later, Tom moves to GM where he tells them the formula for new brake lining. Is Tom stealing Ford’s
intellectual property?
Feature Positive Test Case Neg.
Generic Info. Yes ------------------------------------------X No
Differ. Applic. Yes -------------------------------------------X No
Info protected No -------------------------------------------- X Yes
as Trade Secret
This is a clear violation of the intellectual property rights of Ford.
Section 3: Confidentiality in Client-professional relation
Time allocation 2 credit hours
In this section, we will discuss about confidentiality in client professional relation. We will also
scrutinize and look at the detail of this concept in professional ethics context.

Session objectives:
After you have completed studying this section, you will be able to:
-define confidentiality and client professional relation.
-understand what confidentiality is all about.
-explain the role of confidentiality.

Brainstorming:
? Dear learner, what is Confidentiality? And how it is kept in client profession?
Information considered desirable to be kept secret.
Any information that the employer or client would like to have kept secret in order to compete effectively
against business rivals.
This information includes how business is run, its products, and suppliers, which directly affects the
ability of the company to compete in the market place
Helps the competitor to gain advantage or catch up

Privileged information, Proprietary information and Patents.

Privileged information:
Information available only on the basis of special privilege such as granted to an employee working on a
special assignment.

Proprietary information:
Information that a company owns or is the proprietor of.
This is primarily used in legal sense.
Also called Trade Secret. A trade secret can be virtually any type of information that has not become
public and which an employer has taken steps to keep secret.

Patents:
Differ from trade secrets.
Legally protect specific products from being manufactured and sold by competitors without the express
permission of the patent holder.
They have the drawback of being public and competitors may easily work around them by creating
alternate designs.

Obligation of Confidentiality
1. Based on ordinary moral considerations:

I. Respect for autonomy:

Recognizing the legitimate control over private information (individuals or corporations).
This control is required to maintain their privacy and protect their self-interest.

II. Respect for Promise:

Respecting promises in terms of employment contracts not to divulge certain information considered
sensitive by the employer

III. Regard for public well being:

Only when there is a confidence that the physician will not reveal information, the patient will have the
trust to confide in him.
Similarly only when companies maintain some degree of confidentiality concerning their products, the
benefits of competitiveness within a free market are promoted.

2. Based on Major Ethical Theories:

All theories profess that employers have moral and institutional rights to decide what information about
their organization should be released publicly.
They acquire these rights as part of their responsibility to protect the interest of the organization.
All the theories, rights ethics, duty ethics and utilitarianism justify this confidentiality but in different
ways.

Effect of Change of Job on Confidentiality

Employees are obliged to protect confidential information regarding former employment, after a change
of job.
The confidentiality trust between employer and employee continues beyond the period of employment.
But, the employee cannot be forced not to seek a change of job.
The employer’s right to keep the trade secrets confidential by a former employee should be accepted at
the same time, the employee’s right to seek career advancement cannot also be denied.

Some engineers practice their own business and they have obligations towards their clients.
Confidentiality covers both sensitive information given by the client and information gained by the
professional in work paid for by the client.
An engineer can abuse client-professional confidentiality as:
- Breaking confidentiality when it is not warranted.
- Refusing to break confidentiality despite higher obligation to public or other people.
Example 1: An engineer inspects a residence of a homeowner who is willing to sell. He finds out that the
house is in need of some repair work.
He sends a copy of his report to the real estate firm.
Engineers’ code of ethics says “Engineers shall not reveal facts, data or information obtained in a
professional capacity without the prior consent of the client or employer except as authorized or required
by law or this Code.”
_ Example 2: An engineer inspects an apartment whose owner is willing to sell. He finds out that the
apartment is in need of evacuation because it poses threat to the safety of its inhabitants.
Competing obligations towards the client and the public. Obligation to public surpasses the moral
obligation to client.
Integrity and Expert Testimony
_ Engineers are sometimes hired as expert witness in cases where competent technical knowledge is
required.
_ The Expert should follow certain rules to avoid problems such as withholding information during cross
examination.
_ Not to take a case if there is shortage of time for thorough analysis.
_ Not to take a case unless he/she can finish with clear conscience.
_ To consult extensively with a lawyer while getting prepared for his/her testimony during cross
examination.
_ To maintain an objective and unbiased demeanor on the witness stand.
_ To be open to new information, even during the course of trial.
Integrity and Failure to Inform the Public
_ Professional irresponsibility can be described as failure to inform those whose decisions are impaired by
the absence of the information.
_ From the standpoint of Respect for Persons engineers should ensure that technical information is
available to those who need it, especially when disasters can be avoided.
INTEGRITY IN ORGANISATIONS
The culture of an organisation has an impact on the way individuals behave within it. It is much easier to
behave with integrity if surrounded by a framework that encourages such behaviour. A code of conduct is
often a key component of such a framework, if designed and applied properly:
‘Codes of conduct must be transformed into powers for good, not primarily toothless forms of
chastisement. The codes must become active documents which aim to encourage the professional to
accept that ‘not everything has a price’, that the professional’s actions should be founded on a strong
premise.’

Organisational integrity is not the result of one action by one individual. The perception of organisational
integrity is influenced by a cumulative effect of the integrity exhibited by the individuals within the
organisation, though weighted for their apparent level of influence. This creates an identifiable value: the
integrity that others inside or outside the organisation perceive as attributable to the organisation.
This is not a single direction process. The integrity that an organisation is identified as having is not
arrived at as a consequence of one decision. It is built up over time (though can be more rapidly
destroyed) and is affected by the behaviour exhibited by all the individuals within the organisation. Those
with the greatest level of influence are likely to have the most impact, but everyone's behaviour will have
an effect.

Most auditors and other professional accountants work in organisations of some kind. It follows that
individual professional integrity and organisational integrity are linked and that the organisational culture
is key to the achievement of integrity within the profession.
The promotion of organisational integrity requires a number of key, interlinked,
drivers11:
• Leadership, which is particularly important in terms of statement, intent, and action;
• Strategy;
• Policies;
• Information; and
• Culture.
To be effective, the ethical values must be embedded within the way the organisation does business. In
practice the success of this can be observed through a number of indicators:
• Awareness: an organisation that seeks to have integrity will recognise ethical dilemmas;
• Predictability: an organisation with integrity knows how to act when it faces an ethics dilemma, because
it has, and applies, clear ethical values in a consistent and credible manner;
• Transparency: being open and honest about its behaviour;
• Long term view: In organisations with integrity short term actions support long term goals. This implies,
for example, creating long term relationships with clients, suppliers and other stakeholders;
• People: there is a commitment to support employees to uphold the organisation's ethical values and to
deal with any ethical dilemmas they may face.
As an example, an audit firm requires all its partners and employees to undergo annual independence
training, including a test. A manager finds a way to cheat the system and appears to have passed the test
even though he has not done so.
The manager shares the procedure with other members of the firm encouraging them to take advantage of
this easy way to overcome the obligation. When the firm discovers this it has a clear route that it would be
expected to follow:
• Independence is key for any audit firm and acting with integrity is one of the firm’s values. Therefore
the firm should dismiss the manager, sending a message to the whole organisation that certain behaviours
are not permitted by the firm;
• An alternative to dismissal would be disciplinary action, but if this is not generally made public, the firm
would need to take additional steps to ensure that the message that certain behaviours are not permitted, is
received throughout the firm.
The firm must resist the temptation to take a more pragmatic view and not vary its response even if the
manager is a critical resource for ongoing work.
Brainstorming:
What are the possible obligations of confidentiality?

Section 4: Conflict of Interest

Time allocation 2 credit hours
In this section, we will discuss about conflict of interest. We will also look at the detail of this concept
and things those causes this conflict.

Session objectives:
After you have completed studying this section, you will be able to:
-define conflict of interest.
-identify different causes of conflict of interest.
-explain conflict of interest from the angle of professional ethics view.

Brainstorming:
? Dear learner, what is conflict of interest?
Conflict of Interest arises when two conditions are met:
1. The professional is in a relationship or a role that requires exercising good judgment on behalf of the
interests of an employer or client and

2. The professional has some additional or side interest that could threaten good judgment in serving the
interests of the employee or client. E.g. when an engineer is paid based on a percentage of the cost of the
design and there is no incentive for him to cut costs- The distrust caused by this situation compromises
the engineers‟ ability to cut costs and calls into question his judgment.

An act of gift and an act of bribe

A gift is a bribe if you cannot eat, drink or smoke it in a day.
If you think that your offer of acceptance of a particular gift would have grave or merely embarrassing
consequences for your company if made public, then the gift should be considered a bribe.
Bribe can be said to be a substantial amount of money or goods offered beyond a stated business contract
with the aim of winning an advantage in gaining or keeping the contract.
Here ‘substantial’ means that which is sufficient to distort the judgment of a typical person.
Conflict of Interest created by Interest in other companies
When one works actually for the competitor or subcontractor as an employee or consultant.
Having partial ownership or substantial stock holdings in the competitor’s business.
It may not arise by merely having a spouse working for sub-contractor to one’s company, but it will arise
if one’s job also includes granting contracts to that subcontractor.
Tempting customers away from their current employer, while still working for them to form their own
competing business.
Moonlighting usually creates conflicts when working for competitors, suppliers or customers but does not
conflict when working for others without affecting the present employer’s business.

Moon lighting means working in one’s spare time for another employer.
Conflicts of Interest created by Insider information
Using inside information to set-up a business opportunity for oneself or family or friends.
Buying stock in the company for which one works is not objectionable but it should be based on the same
information available to the public.
The use of any company secrets by employee to secure a personal gain threatens the interest of the
company.

Avoiding Conflicts of Interests

Taking guidance from Company Policy
In the absence of such a policy taking a second opinion from a co-worker or manager: This gives an
impression that there no intension on the part of the engineer to hide anything.
In the absence of these options to examine one’s own motives and use the ethical problem solving
techniques.
One can look carefully into the professional codes of ethics which uniformly forbid conflicts of interest.
Some of these codes have very explicit statements that can help determine whether or not the situation
constitutes conflict of interest.
Types of Crime
Domestic crime
Non-accidental crime committed by members of the family
Professional Crime
When crime is pursued as a profession or day to day occupation
Blue collar crime (or) Street crime
Crime against person, property (theft, assault on a person, rape)
Victimless crime
Person who commits the crime is the victim of the crime. E.g. Drug addiction
Hate crime
Crime done on the banner of religion, community, linguistics
Occupational Crime
Occupational crimes are illegal acts made possible through one’s lawful employment.
It is the secretive violation of laws regulating work activities.
When committed by office workers or professionals, occupational crime is called ‘white collar crime’.

People Committing Occupational Crimes usually have high standard of education from a non-criminal
family background.
Middle class male around 27 years of age (70% of the time) with no previous history
No involvement in drug or alcohol abuse
Those who had troublesome life experience in the childhood (Blum)
People without firm principles (Spencer)
Firms with declining profitability (Coleman, 1994)
Firms in highly regulated areas and volatile market -pharmaceutical, petroleum industry.(Albanese,
1995)

Price Fixing
An act was passed, which forbade (prevented) companies from jointly setting prices in ways that restrain
free competition and trade. Unfortunately, many senior people, well respected and positioned were of the
opinion that „price fixing‟ was good for their organizations and the public.
Employees Endangering Lives of Employees
Employers indulge in exposing their employees to safety hazards. They escape criminal action against
them, by paying nominal compensations even if their crimes are proved in court. And even this happens
only when the victim sues company for damages under civil law.
Professional Rights & Ethical Theories
1. Rights Ethics:
The most basic human right, which needs no justification, is to pursue one’s legitimate (those that do not
violate others’ rights) interests.
The right to pursue legitimate interests gives a person right to pursue professional moral obligations.
This may be viewed as a human right of conscience directly derived from the basic human right.

2. Duty Ethics:
I have a right to something only because others have duties or obligations to allow me (and not interfere)
to do so.
If we derive the meaning of others as employers, then the basic professional right is justified by reference
to others duties to support or not interfere with the work related exercise of conscience by professionals.

3. Utilitarianism:
Public good can be served by allowing professionals to meet their obligations to the public.
These obligations arise due to the professional’s role in promoting public good.
The basic goal of producing the most good for the greatest number of people is enough to justify the right
of professional conscience.
Conflict of interest also exists when a profession is subject to influences, loyalties, temptations, or other
interests that tend to make the professional’s judgment less likely to benefit the customer or client than
the customer or client expects.
Professionals shall not be influenced in their professional duties by conflicting interests..
Conflict of Interest can be:
-Actual
-Potential
- Apparent
Actual conflict of interest can corrupt professional judgment. Potential conflict of interest may corrupt
professional judgment in future, if not at present. Apparent conflict of interest decreases the confidence of
the audience even if professional judgment is not actually corrupted.
Conflicts of Interest and Accepting Gifts:
Resolving Cases by Line-Drawing
Case 1: ValCo valves are superior to traditional ones. After a large number of orders from ValCo, Jim
(Valco salesman and former classmate of Tom) visits
Tom and gives him a pen worth of $5. Should Tom accept the pen?
Feature Positive Test Case Neg.
Gift Timing after X----------------------------------------- Before.
Prod. Quality High X----------------------------------------- Low
Gift Cost Low X----------------------------------------- High
Gift giver is No X---------------------------------------- Yes
a friend
Case 5: ValCo valves are superior to traditional ones. Before Tom decides to
purchase a large number of valves from ValCo, Jim (Valco salesman and
former classmate of Tom) visits Tom and offers to sponsor him for
membership in an exclusive country club. Should Tom accept the offer?
Feature Positive Test Case Neg.
Gift Timing After ----- ------------------------X Before.
Prod. Quality High ------------------------------X Low
Gift Cost Low -------------------------------X High
Gift giver is No --------------------------------X Yes
a friend
Case 7: ValCo valves are inferior to traditional ones. Before Tom decides to purchase a large number of
valves from ValCo, Jim (Valco salesman and
former classmate of Tom) visits Tom and offers to sponsor him for an all expenses-paid trip to Bahamas.
Should Tom accept the offer?
Feature Positive Test Case Neg.
Gift Timing After ------------------X ---------------Before.
Prod. Quality High --------------------X--------------- Low
Gift Cost Low -------------------X------ ---------High
Gift giver is No --------------------------X---------- Yes
a friend
Summary of the unit:
Self check exercise:
References: