Kenny, a senior engineer of a telephone company, was approached by his friend Philip, an engineering company's proprietor, for assistance in his business in trading communications equipment.
Since Kenny was responsible for overseeing telecommunication network design and procurement of communications equipment, Philip requested him to make recommendations to the telephone company for purchasing the products of Philip’s newly established company. In return, Philip promised to employ Kenny as a consultant of his company.
Agreeing to the proposal, Kenny then helped in making Philip’s company an authorised vendor of the telephone company and lined up transactions for him.
An outside employment is an advantage under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO). If Kenny accepted the consultant post for making Philip’s company an authorised vendor of the telephone company, he might be charged of acceptance of bribe. Philip might also be charged of offering of bribe. Both of them would commit an offence under Section 9 of the POBO.
Besides, there would also be a potential conflict of interest for Kenny to take up the consultant post in Philip’s engineering company even if no bribery was involved. Kenny should declare his interest by informing his employer in writing of this outside employment.
As an administrator, Bernard conducted yearly evaluations of his subordinates. The evaluations were weighed heavily in management promotion decisions. Recently, two of Bernard’s subordinates Apple and Barry were competing for a new administrative post. Bernard worked well with Apple but Apple’s performance was average. If Apple worked alongside Bernard as a peer, she would not challenge Bernard or threaten his position in the firm. Barry, by contrast, was outstanding; but his tendency to shake things up and push for changes made it very difficult for Bernard to work with. Foreseeing Barry’s potential in the company, Bernard was worried that his position in the company would be threatened if Barry got promoted. On the other hand, Bernard also knew that his peer administrators kept average-performing supporters to themselves through the staff evaluation process.
Should he write a strong annual evaluation for Apple but an average one for Barry? Between Apple and Barry, who would be better for the firm and who would better off with Bernard?
Bernard was facing an ethical dilemma that might put his personal values such as fairness, responsibility and honesty to challenge. In handling the situation, Bernard should identify the relevant facts and take stock of all stakeholders concerned. The following factors should be taken into consideration when identifying viable alternatives and choosing the best course of action:
The ETHICS PLUS ethical decision making model might be helpful for him in solving his ethical.
A plant engineer of a hi-tech electronic product manufacturer was responsible for maintenance of the company's production facilities. The plant engineer came to know a maintenance service supplier who frequently treated him to lavish entertainment at clubs and leading restaurants. Later, the supplier invited the plant engineer to join his company as a partner and promised him a share of the company's annual profits if the plant engineer agreed to award more contracts to him thereafter. Mindful of the supplier's past generosity, the plant engineer felt embarrassed to turn down the supplier's offer.
The plant engineer might contravene the Rules of Conduct of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers if he concealed his personal interest in the supplier's company and secured business for the supplier who might not be the best capable service provider for his company.
Both the plant engineer and the supplier might violate Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) if the partnership, which could be an advantage under the POBO, was offered and accepted without the permission of the electronic product manufacturer.
Although entertainment is common in business practice, the plant engineer should avoid accepting excessive entertainment that may affect his objectivity in discharging duties. He should also check whether his company has any policy on the acceptable level of hospitality offered by contractors/vendors to prevent any conflicts of interest or the potential for such a conflict.
A project engineer is employed by a chemical product manufacturer to supervise the engineering works performed by its contractors. Due to his job nature, he develops a close companionship with a contractor who has recently undertaken a gas tank repair project of the company.
Learning that the project engineer suffers from substantial loss in a recent stock investment, the contractor immediately offers to lend the project engineer $200,000 to help him overcome the financial difficulty.
When time comes for an inspection to be conducted for the gas tank repairing works, the contractor requests the project engineer to turn a blind eye to certain defects found in the finished works, saying that the defects can have little chance to pose a safety hazard. He also reminds the project engineer of his generosity to him in the past. The project engineer finds it difficult to require the contractor to rectify all the defects found in the works.
Besides breaching the Rules of Conduct of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers, the project engineer may put his employer's interest and public safety at stake if he compromises his objectivity in professional judgment and turns a blind eye to substandard works.
The project engineer should not accept a loan from persons who have business dealings with the company, placing him into a position of obligation that may lead to a conflict of interest.
The project engineer and the contractor may be liable to the charge of a corruption offence under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (POBO) for offering and accepting a loan, an advantage under the POBO, in relation to the duties of the recipient's company without his employer's permission.
When receiving his company's instruction to design a computer software for a digital answering machine, a company's software engineer claimed that he was too busy to take up the job and recommended it to be contracted out to an outside software house which was owned solely by his former colleague.
The software house owner at first had no intention to undertake the job. But the software engineer persuaded him to secure the job first and then sub-contract it back to the software engineer. Using the software house as a disguise to deceive his own company, the software engineer could pocket $95,000 being 90% of the project fee while the rest would go to the owner.
The software engineer contravened the Rules of Conduct of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers, which require an engineer to offer complete loyalty to his employer and avoid engaging in business, investments or activities which conflict with the interests of his employer.
An employment or contract could be considered as an advantage. As the software engineer's company neither approved the engineer to take up part-time job nor allowed him to accept any advantage in relation to his duties, the engineer had violated Section 9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance for assisting the software house to get the job and accepting the project fee in return.
Jonathan was a very task-oriented young computer programmer employed by the Galaxy Electronics Ltd for two years.
One day, his supervisor asked him to design a programme for a digital answering machine. Jonathan turned it down and explained that he was extremely busy at that time. The job was then contracted out to an outside software house named Leo Systems Company.
It so happened that Leo, the proprietor of Leo Systems, was an old friend of Jonathan. He rang Jonathan and told him of the job offer. Actually, Leo and his staff had their hands full at that time but would not like to turn down Galaxy when they made the offer. What Leo wanted was to maintain a good relationship with Galaxy all through so that in future when their jobs again had to be contracted out, they would come to Leo Systems again.
Leo asked if Jonathan would consider lending a hand in designing the programme in his own spare time. The contract money could be split, with Jonathan taking a share for the part that he did and Leo taking the share his men worked on.
Jonathan thought hard. He could certainly sacrifice a few nights' sleep to get a part of the programme written up. He knew what the requirements were.
Should he say ‘yes’ to Leo? He would be earning extra money at the expenses of his boss. Would this weigh heavily on his conscience? Or was it a stone that could be lifted easily?
Jonathan was facing a situation of conflict of interest as well as an ethical dilemma that might put his personal values such as loyalty and honesty to challenge. On one hand, his assistance to Leo could help Leo’s company maintain a good business relationship with Galaxy; on the other hand, his taking up of the moonlighting job from Leo at the expense of his boss might create a conflict of interest. In handling the situation, Jonathan should identify the relevant facts and take stock of all stakeholders concerned. The following factors should be taken into consideration when identifying viable alternatives and choosing the best course of action for himself:
The ETHICS PLUS ethical decision making model might be helpful for him in solving the dilemma.
Tom and Jerry were mechanical engineers of the Clark Gable Company Ltd (CG Co). The two were the same batch and had been with the company for only a short time. Recently, due to the re-organisation of the firm, some people would be laid off. Mechanical engineering work would then be vested with a larger company, the Rock Hudson Ltd. The first ones to go would be those who came last and thus Tom and Jerry's jobs would be in jeopardy.
Tom tried to find a way out for the two of them. They persuaded two friends, Sam and Tim who had similar training and background, to set up an engineering company called the Catch All Engineering Ltd (CAE). This would serve as a fallback in case they were really sacked.
Shortly after CAE was set up, the bad news released. Tom and Jerry were given notice to leave CG Co but, to their great surprise, Rock Hudson Ltd., which had taken over CG Co, offered to employ them to undertake their old duties.
Both of them were overjoyed. But then they had another problem. The two would have no more time to take care of matters related to CAE.
So one evening Tom and Jerry treated Sam and Tim to a sumptuous meal and told them that they could no longer share the business with them. Sam and Tim were outraged. They reprimanded Tom and Jerry for making use of them in the first place and then leaving them in the lurch. Trying to find a way out, Tim then made a proposal to Tom and Jerry.
Rock Hudson, as a major company, could provide many work opportunities. The only thing that had to be done was to get CAE on their approved list of contractors. Tom and Jerry could try to arrange that in whatever way possible. After all, CAE provided quality service and it had to survive.
Tom and Jerry were in a quandary. They counted themselves most fortunate to be still in employment and with an even larger company. And they wished they could help their friends out. Should they agree to add CAE to the approved list no matter what and no matter how? It would do Rock Hudson no harm anyway.
What would happen if they refused? Would they be indebted to Sam and Tim for the rest of their lives? How should they handle that?
Tom and Jerry were facing an ethical dilemma that might put their personal values such as fairness and honesty to challenge. On one hand, they felt obliged to help Sam and Tim out as they were lured into setting up a company upon invitation; on the other hand, it might jeopardise their career if Tom and Jerry tried to put the company on the approved list of contractors without going through proper procedures. In handling the situation, they should identify the relevant facts and take stock of all stakeholders concerned. The following factors should be taken into consideration when identifying viable alternatives and choosing the best course of action for themselves:
The ETHICS PLUS ethical decision making model might be helpful for them in solving the dilemma.
Felix, a production manager of a large toy factory, had two assistants, Gigi and Gordon. Gigi was the favourite because she was a young charming lady and also a cousin of the General Manager while Gordon was not because he was brash and sometimes outright insolent. They were both responsible for handling the overtime claims for workers on the toy production. The Finance Department had complained to Felix a few times about Gigi and raised queries over some overtime claims forwarded by Gigi. There were widespread rumours that Gigi might have overstated the overtime hours and even forged claims by using ghost workers. Yet, Felix could not bring himself to ask Gigi for explanations but went easy on her by telling her to be more ‘prudent’ when handling the overtime claims in the future. On the other hand, the Finance Department contacted Felix again but this time was about Gordon. They had questions about some discrepancies on the hours of the overtime claims forwarded by Gordon. However, Felix treated Gordon more strictly and was much firmer on the occasion.
Was Felix being equally fair to his assistants when handling the queries from the Finance Department? Would it upset the General Manager if Felix was not kind to Gigi at work, which in return affected Felix’s work prospect? How would it affect his professional image in the eyes of other colleagues?
Felix was facing an ethical dilemma that might put his personal values such as fairness, responsibility and honesty to challenge. In handling the situation, Felix should identify the relevant facts and take stock of all stakeholders concerned. The following factors should be taken into consideration when identifying viable alternatives and choosing the best course of action:
The ETHICS PLUS ethical decision making model might be helpful for him in solving the dilemma.
Thank you for your feedback.
