Engineer A should bring this potential safety issue to the attention of Engineer A’s supervisor and ES Consulting. The Board assumes that the potential safety issues do not pose an imminent danger; therefore, Engineer A does not have an obligation to report this issue beyond his superiors in ES Consulting.

An engineer’s role in protecting the public health and safety is fundamental and basic to the overall ethical responsibilities of all engineers. The NSPE Code of Ethics places the obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public as the engineer’s first and primary obligation. Because of their education, experience, and training, engineers possess unique qualifications which often permit them to identify situations and circumstances that may raise serious risks. The NSPE Board of Ethical Review has reviewed a variety of cases over the years that have explored the scope and bounds of that obligation. The duty to hold paramount the public health, safety, and welfare is among the most basic and fundamental obligations to which an engineer is required to adhere. While the obligation is an important and essential one, it is not without some limits with regard to the role of the engineer in society generally. While in many instances, the obligation is often clear and obvious, in other instances, there could be an obligation on the part of the engineer to balance competing or concurrent concerns. As early as BER Case No. 65-12, the Board dealt with a situation in which a group of engineers believed that a product was unsafe. The Board then determined that as long as the engineers held to that view, they were ethically justified in refusing to participate in the processing or production of the product in question. The Board recognized that such action by the engineers would likely lead to loss of employment, but the engineers had a right to maintain their position based upon the provisions of the NSPE Code. In BER Case No. 82-5, where an engineer employed by a large defense industry firm documented and reported to his employer excessive costs and time delays by subcontractors, the Board ruled that the engineer did not have an ethical obligation to continue his efforts to secure a change in the policy after his employer rejected his reports, or to...

Engineer A works for ES Consulting, a consulting engineering firm. In performing engineering services for ES Consulting, Engineer A performs construction observation services on a project for Client X. During the performance of the construction observation services for Client X, Engineer A observes potential safety issues relating to the performance of work by a subcontractor on a project being constructed on an adjacent piece of property for Owner Y, a party with whom neither Engineer A, ES Consulting, or Client X has any direct relationship.

What are Engineer A’s ethical obligations under the circumstances?