Module 5 [ ]

Global IssueFrom a managerial perspective, the ethical problems manifested in the arena of international business represent real ethical dilemmas for the contemporary managers as they generate, at least on a short term, a conflict between the organizational economic performance (evaluated by measuring the turnover, the costs and the profits) and its social performance (evaluated by measuring the ethical responsibilities to the people outside or inside the organization

one of the most important ethical dilemmas that international managers must face is that of corruption, respectively the opportunity of paying a governmental clerk, providing this action leads to making some business, employing local labor force and, implicitly, increasing the organizational efficiency and the living standard in the respective community.

The managers of the transnational corporations that face with financial demands from some governmental officials on the foreign markets where they act may solve these demands in an ethical manner, without having the risk to break the relations with the host state if they respect the following three general principles:1. respecting the basic human rights;2. respecting local traditions;3. making the difference between good and bad by examining the context

More precisely, the managers of the transnational corporations may respond to such demands in an ethical manner if they apply one of the following methods:

Donations in money in order to create or develop various public services (such as building hospitals or roads) for the host state, correspondingly promoted and managed, may increase the public appreciation to the organization and prevents the money disappearance in private pockets;

Donations in goods or services may be medical equipments for hospitals, computers for schools or aids for underprivileged persons and, if promoted correspondingly, may facilitate the future development of the business and they are absolutely ethical;

Donations in jobs refer to employing some persons in the host country in some projects meant to sustain the organizational activity, but also to increase their trust in it. For instance, Coca-Cola hired, in Egypt, six hundred persons to plant hundreds of acres with orange trees, recuperating the respective land from the deserted zone, and obtained thus an increase of confidence from the Egyptian community, without violating the principles of business ethics

SOURCES OF ETHICAL DILEMMAS & FUNDAMENTAL ETHICAL ISSUE

Corruption Is it ethical to make a payment to a governmental clerk providing it depends on succeeding in a business?

Page 1

Module 5 [ ]

Industrial espionage Is it ethical to use some information about the competitors’ activity, obtained through methods that are at the edge of the law?

Relation with the environment Is the organizational behavior ethical, though it has the possibility to go over the environment standards imposed by the legislation, staying competitive, is satisfied to respect them?

Relation with the employees Is it an ethical behavior for the organization to apply different personnel policies regarding employment, promotion and remuneration of the employees on different markets where it acts?

Relation with the consumers Is it ethical for the behavior of an organization which does not completely inform its target consumers about the features of the offered product and which has big prices for the key products in order to maintain the consumers’ health and life, even though the legislation in the host country allows it?

CorruptionCorruption is both a major cause and a result of poverty around the world. It occurs at all levels of society, from local and national governments, civil society, judiciary functions, large and small businesses, military and other services and so on.

One of the most important ethical dilemmas that international managers must face is that of corruption, respectively the opportunity of paying a governmental clerk, providing this action leads to making some business, employing local labor force and, implicitly, increasing the organizational efficiency and the living standard in the respective community.

In most developed or underdeveloped countries, the bribe is a daily aspect, which led to the opinion that in such countries, the governmental payments are an indivisible side of a successful business. Many of the multinational companies that have applied such practices motivate that they are determined by their competitors who put them into practice and they do not want to stay behind

Corruption may be Offering or paying some amounts of money to different political parties, candidates or

foreign public clerks, holding influential positions, which they may use in order to support the organization to get or keep some business;

Forms of indirect payment - companies are forbidden to pay if they know or suspect that any part of that sum will get to an illegal fund or for corruptive activities

For example, the company Lockheed, constructing aircrafts, faced such a situation on the Japanese market. Lockheed paid 12 million dollars to the Japanese Prime Minister, to the president of the Japanese Airlines Association, as well as to other seven political persons in order to facilitate its business on the respective market. When revealed, the company motivated that the payments made to the enumerated officials represents less than 3% of the profits

Page 2

Module 5 [ ]

obtained by selling the model L-1011 and that, anyway, according to the federal laws, such payments are not interdicted

The managers of the transnational corporations that face with such financial demands from some governmental officials on the foreign markets where they act may solve these demands in an ethical manner, without having the risk to break the relations with the host state if they respect the following three general principles:

1. respecting the basic human rights;2. respecting local traditions;3. making the difference between good and bad by examining the context

More precisely, the managers of the transnational corporations may respond to such demands in an ethical manner if they apply one of the following methods:

Donations in money in order to create or develop various public services (such as building hospitals or roads) for the host state, correspondingly promoted and managed, may increase the public appreciation to the organization and prevents the money disappearance in private pockets;

Donations in goods or services may be medical equipments for hospitals, computers for schools or aids for underprivileged persons and, if promoted correspondingly, may facilitate the future development of the business and they are absolutely ethical;

Donations in jobs refer to employing some persons in the host country in some projects meant to sustain the organizational activity, but also to increase their trust in it. For instance, Coca-Cola hired, in Egypt, six hundred persons to plant hundreds of acres with orange trees, recuperating the respective land from the deserted zone, and obtained thus an increase of confidence from the Egyptian community, without violating the principles of business ethics

Industrial espionage It is another unorthodox and absolutely illegal method which transnational corporations use in order to go ahead of their competitors. John Pepper, the general manager of Procter & Gamble faced such an ethical issue, and the manner in which he solved it may represent a real model for al contemporary organizations. Thus, a few years ago, Pepper was informed by his managers that the company employees responsible for the “competition analysis” (department which studied and predicted the movements of the main competitors) set a system that allowed them to spy the activity of their main competitor, respectively Unilever.

These employees contracted a company which, in its turn, had contracted other twelve smaller companies whose employees entered the property of Unilever pretending to be market analysts and they analyzed the garbage resulted from the productive process of the main production unit.Thus, it seems that the so-called analysts obtained enough secret information about the products and the production processes of Unilever in order to make the company face some competitive issues.

When he found about his employees’ initiative, John Pepper stopped the action, fired the responsible employees and turn the issue public, both inside his organization and outside it. Then he informed Unilever about the measures he adopted and accepted this company’s

Page 3

Module 5 [ ]

solicitation to supervise the activity of Procter & Gamble for one year by an impartial auditor to prevent using any of the information obtained illegally

Relation with the environmentBeing aware of the devastating effects of the post-war “wild capitalism”, we face the conception according to which protecting the natural environment must be considered a major social task of humankind and, especially, of its representatives in the business world. Presently, the international organizations must respect not only the national legislation regarding environment protection, but also the one of the host countries and the international regulations that get tougher and tougher sanctions in case of disrespecting them. In spite of all this, there is a big temptation to break these rules, as the costs required to obey them often significantly diminish the companies’ profits and competitive capacity. Many times, famous names in the economic international business were involved in pollution scandals, with lasting effects in the reputation and the image perceived by the consumers.

One of the numerous examples Mitsubishi Corporation which, in 1989, was boycotted by the activists in the organization called „Rainforest Action Network”, who accused the company of being responsible to a great extent for the destruction of the forests in the S-E Asia, South andNorth America and Siberia. The boycott aimed at the products of two companies that are members of the above mentioned corporation: Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America and Mitsubishi Electric America. The boycott ended in 1998. In December 2001, nine companies belonging to the international company Mitsubishi Corporation were fined by the European Commission with 313.7 million Euros, as the 1990s represented a cartel to keep the high price of non-charcoal paper. In November 2002, Mitsubishi Corporation declared itself ready to start immediately to respect the international regulations regarding forest exploitation

Relation with EmployeesThe relation with the employees is another important aspect upon which the managers of the multinational corporations must make ethical decisions, without compromises. The managers have the heavy task to create a climate of respect and mutual confidence, by respecting the rights of the executive personnel that are subordinated to them. The employees will really get involved into their tasks, for the success of the organization, only if they have a certain status at their workplace, liberty, intimacy, and a fair salary.

As poverty is often, in underdeveloped countries, a good reason to ignore the fundamental human rights and liberties, the organizations must not only respect the law but also respect the traditions of employment and personnel remuneration. This attitude will only worsen the situation of these people who are ready to work even for less than they need to survive.

As a consequence, the multinational companies must fulfill the minimum legal provisions with what they consider to be necessary to increase the respect of the employees in the host countries and to improve their living standard.

An interesting example is the one of Levi Strauss, which set a system of evaluating the opportunities to approach each country apart in order to develop businesses. This system

Page 4

Module 5 [ ]

specifies, among other things, that the company “will not initiate or continue the businesses in the countries where there are frequent violations of the fundamental human rights”.

After applying this evaluation system, the company decided to withdraw itself from China’s market, due to the fact that here there was compelling work and a lack of decent conditions regarding the situation of the employees less capable to protect their rights. This decision was even harder to adopt as the withdrawal meant losing some important business and, especially, sacrificing some opportunities of future substantial development. In spite of all this, the company had a major benefit. According to the declaration made by the general manager, “no other action of the company enjoyed any spontaneous and important support, coming from the people all over the world”

Relation to consumers

The relation with the consumers is almost a permanent source of ethical dilemmas for contemporary managers. Thus, starting with practicing some exaggerated prices up to spending huge amounts to promote their products, starting with practicing excessive value added taxes, using cheating practices of packaging, promoting and selling, starting with bringing into the market some products that do not correspond from the point of view of quality and security up to the planned moral usage, the cases of unethical behaviors of the organizations in their relation with the consumers face an impressing diversity. The worst situations are the ones in which the organizations violate not only the ethical business principles, but also the consumers’ fundamental rights, which takes them in front of the law, in case of such practices.

For instance, the biggest ethical challenge faced by McDonald’s in recent years concerns issues of health and nutrition. With critics claiming that a diet of fast food has been a major contributor to escalating rates of obesity, McDonald’s, as the world’s leading fast food company, has inevitably been first in the firing line. Among the arguments made by its critics are that the company has failed to provide a balanced menu, that it provides insufficient nutritional information and guidance, and that it actively encourages consumers (especially children) to make unhealthy choices, for example by promoting ‘super size’ portions.

In this context, it was no surprise that the attack in the US quickly escalated to litigation. An initial lawsuit against the firm, brought on behalf of two New York children, was filed with great publicity in 2002. This accused the fast-food chain of misleading young consumers about the healthiness of its products, and understandably stirred up fears that food companies could come under the similar sort of legal attacks that hammered the tobacco industry in the 1990s. Although the initial lawsuit was dismissed, elements regarding deceptive advertising were reinstated as admissible following appeal in 2005. So, whilst the company continues to regard the suit as ‘frivolous’, the threat of future litigations still unmistakably hangs over the company

Nike- Case studyThe American public was simply scandalized finding out that Nike sport shoes for children, for which the American parents pay between 100 and 180 dollars are produced for only 5 dollars by Nike. The complete amazement was when some Pakistan and Indonesian kids were presented broidering the Nike logo on the company products for only 2 dollars per day.

Page 5

Module 5 [ ]

Those who observed it for the very first time were the teenagers from a social centre in Bronx, who initiated a protesting action in front of the supermarket Nike-Town. Around 200 teenagers emptied in front of the security agents bags full of old Nike sport shoes. What amazed the Nike managers even more was the declaration made by a thirteen-year old girl who said on a national TV channel: “Nike, we made you, we will break you!”

Consequence of unethical behaviorAn organization which chooses to adopt an unethical behavior, regardless its reasons, makes it, without realizing, on a long term, takes her out of the market. For example, a study about the impact of discovered unethical behavior on the performance of a company’s stock revealed that unethical behavior that is discovered and publicized has a negative impact on the stock price for an appreciable period of time. Unethical behavior, therefore, decreases a firm’s wealth. An example of this type of unethical behavior would be a tobacco company charged with hiding evidence about the health risks of smoking cigarettes. As a result many shareholders sell their shares, and other investors lose interest in buying stock in the company

Highly ethical behavior and socially responsible acts are not always free. Investing in work/life programs,

granting social leaves of

absence, and telling customers the absolute truth about potential

product problems may not have an immediate return on

investment. From an antagonistic perspective, respecting the business ethical principles may generate a series of important advantages for the contemporary organizations.Thus, first of all, promoting an ethical behavior provides the company protection bothagainst the competitors’ unethical behavior and the possible abuses from its own employees.More precisely, the employees’ ethical behavior in the relations with the economic and social environment where the company develops its activity protects the organization from any possible disloyal practices. Another important aspect refers to the fact that a big part of the ethical

Page 6

Module 5 [ ]

dilemmas and issues may be known before the organizational plans be implemented and the anticipatory solution of all the ethical issues saves to time, money, effort and resources and, mostly, increases the organization’s reputation

In conclusion, although an ethical behavior may not be profitable all the time, an unethical behavior frequently generates substantial losses, especially on a long term. That is why it is important for the contemporary organizations to understand that, regardless the nature of some unethical consequences and the timing horizon to which they report, on a long term, they represent considerable costs.

More than that, the consequences of such practices are not counted only to the limit of the sanctions received as fines, but also in the terms of worsening the international business environment, by creating an attitude a suspicious attitude from the society with respect to the motivations and the methods used by all the organizations that act in the respective field of activity

Weapons Development

The landscape of the twenty-first century battlefield is rapidly changing. Contemporary warfare is often far removed from the clash of large, standing armies on the open battlefield. In the United States’ use of “targeted killings” via unmanned drone in Pakistan and Yemen (which are not, otherwise, theaters of war) to the deployment of the Stuxnet computer virus (most likely by Israel and the United States) designed to target the computers that operate industrial equipment in Iran’s nuclear weapons program, we already see examples of this new kind of warfare. The future promises that ever more remote possibilities will become reality – entirely autonomous robotic weapon systems are already under deployment in Iraq and Korea, non-lethal electromagnetic- and sound-based weapons are under development, and research continues actively on automated, armed vehicles and biologically or robotically enhanced soldiers. The increasing pace of weapons research, however, has been matched by a large number of ethical worries, raised by military leaders, scholars, legislators, journalists, and non-profit and humanitarian groups.

A weapon, arm, or armament is any device used in order to inflict damage or harm to living beings, structures, or systems. Weapons are used to increase the efficacy and efficiency of activities such as hunting, crime, law enforcement, self-defense, and warfare. In a broader context, weapons may be construed to include anything used to gain a strategic, material or mental advantage over an adversary.

While just about any ordinary objects such as sticks, stones, cars, or pencils can be used as weapons, many are expressly designed for the purpose – ranging from simple implements such as clubs, swords and guns, and to complicated modern intercontinental ballistic missiles, biological and cyberweapons.

A "weapon of mass destruction" (WMD or WoMD) is nuclear,radiological, biological, chemical or other weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or

Page 7

Module 5 [ ]

thebiosphere. The scope and application of the term has evolved and been disputed, often signifying more politically than technically. Coined in reference to aerial bombing with chemical explosives, it has come to distinguish large-scale weaponry of other technologies, such as chemical, biological,radiological, or nuclear. This differentiates the term from more technical ones such as chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons (CBRN).

Today eight countries are possessing nuclear weapons. The five nuclear weapons states United States, Russia (former Soviet Union), United Kingdom, France and China, are the only countries allowed to have nuclear weapons according to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) from 1970. All members of the United Nations except Israel, India and Pakistan have signed the NPT.

It is simply immoral for states and for non-state actors to use, to threaten with or even to possess nuclear weapons. Both the Catholic Church and the WCC have regularly and consistently implied this as they pleaded for complete nuclear disarmament. Pope Benedict XVI stated clearly “In a nuclear war there would be no victors, only victims.” He called on those countries in possession of nuclear weapons to “strive for a progressive and concerted nuclear disarmament.” Pax Christi International fully supports these efforts of both the WCC and the Holy See. This deep conviction is rooted in our belief - in the dignity of every human life - in the profound value of creation and - in the intrinsic interconnectedness of the two. Ethical obligations includes- the obligation for governments to provide for genuine, inclusive human security – at the very minimum to ensure the survival of the human community and of the earth; thus follows, for example, - a prohibition on the use of - or threats to use - weapons so powerful that they put at risk the very survival of the human species and the rest of creation -- the willingness to inflict massive destruction on civilian populations and on future generations undermines our deepest human and ethical values; and - a prohibition on the expenditure for weapons that threaten the very existence of life, of financial resources necessary to meet basic human needs or to restore the integrity of creation – from an ethical perspective this massive expenditure would be seen as a theft from the poor and a violation of our obligation to protect the environment for the sake of all life.

Far from being the purview of pacifists, the ethical prohibition of nuclear weapons as a legitimate tool in the national security toolbox flows easily from even a cursory application of the jus in bellum criteria of just war theory to nuclear weapons. For example, - wars must be fought with right intention – i.e, to restore peace or to defend violated rights and must be fought with a view to negotiated peace, not unconditional surrender; - there must be a strong probability of success; - conduct in war must be just and civilians cannot be deliberately targeted; - proportionality – the good accomplished must outweigh the evil.

Page 8

Module 5 [ ]

The possession of nuclear weapons, their development, modernization and testing have been – and certainly are now - immoral and ethically untenable.

Engineer as weapon developers

Many people consider working in the arms industry to be like working for any civil engineering company, just with a different market and the extra thrill. But it’s not. It’s fundamentally different. For an individual to act ethically correct working in the arms industry, a number of criteria have to be fulfilled.

The fact that most engineers in the weapons industry see themselves as civilians is severely out of line with reality. It has been mentioned that numerous weapons have influenced not just wars, but history forever. During WW2 a regular war of the engineers has begun, each side trying to outperform the other and providing ones troops with better equipment.

Even before that, a massive turn on WW1 was brought by those engineers that developed the first tanks. Today, America’s military dominance stems to large part from advanced weapons systems. America would not have entered into the gulf wars, if it was not for a vast technological advantage. In short, weapon engineers influence wars.

So how can it be that they are perceived as civilians? Has Openheimer, father of the atomic bomb, not made more difference to warfare then most soldiers ever will? Or Wernher von Braun, inventor of the infamous V1 or V2? Or how about Mr. Kalashnikov, the inventor of the number one worldwide most used automatic gun? Does the mere fact that these people did not go through military training and are not enlisted as soldiers exempt them from the same responsibilities soldiers have? There is no reason why not.

So how can it be that they are perceived as civilians? Has Openheimer, father of the atomic bomb, not made more difference to warfare then most soldiers ever will? Or Wernher von Braun, inventor of the infamous V1 or V2? Or how about Mr. Kalashnikov, the inventor of the number one worldwide most used automatic gun? Does the mere fact that these people did not go through military training and are not enlisted as soldiers exempt them from the same responsibilities soldiers have? There is no reason why not.

As a matter of fact engineers have been an integral part of any armed forces. This has become particular true ever since WW2. As a result of that, evaluation of ethical behavior does not start merely at the front line, where soldiers might or might not use unethical weapons or engage in ethical or unethical activities of war. It does not even start at a general’s desk who decides strategies or which weapons to use. It does not start in any senate, general assembly or president’s desk. It starts at the root, where weapons are born. At the drawing board. And those that create weapons are just as responsible for their use as the one actually using them. Acknowledging that engineers carry responsibility is just the beginning. The questions as to how much and for what actions still remain.

The concept of PASSIVE RESPONSIBILITY is useful for assessing responsibility. Given a wrong-doing, freedom of action can be assumed given for any western democracy. Leaves

Page 9

Module 5 [ ]

foreseeability and causal contribution. Foreseeability can in many cases also be assumed given. If foreseeability does not hold for the engineer, because she did not research the consequences of her doing properly, this does not relieve her from responsibility for her actions as established earlier. I believe there are very little cases where it really is not foreseeable what will happen with one’s technology and products, especially if it is a weapon. The real determining factor when using the concept of PASSIVE RESPONSIBILITY is causal contribution. This one is pretty clear when an engineer is designing a weapon. It remains relatively clear also for supporting systems if they enhance or promote the use of the weapon that is responsible for the wrong-doing. It becomes more vague and difficult to assess for dual use systems and more fundamental research. I find causal contribution to be the main criteria for the responsibility of engineers for use or miss-use of their developments.

At last a lookout to CIVIL LAW is useful in getting over some of the frequently encountered arguments. An often heard one is that engineers claim they are not responsible for the atrocities a certain development of theirs helps to commit. “I am just doing what I am paid to do!”; “I am just developing weapons, not firing them!”. Adolf Eichmann, logistical mastermind of the deportation of millions of Jews to concentration camps used a similar rhetoric during his trial in Israel. “An order is an order” is what he said, and that he never commanded nor participated in any murders himself. All he did was organize transports. He was found guilty and hanged. Rightly so. In CIVIL LAW, if a killer has already shoot a number of victims and is about to shoot more, his accomplice who is loading the gun over and over again, standing by and observing, will be found guilty by the court.

Weapons Development: Extra readingDRDO- Case studyA nightmare was revealed recently when Defence Minister A K Antony ordered the Comptroller General of Defence Audit (CGDA) to do a secret audit of India’s equivalent of the futuristic workshop of James Bond’s ‘Q’ — the Defence Research and Development Organisation that goes by the handle DRDO.

The highlights of the report are frightening. Here are some of them:

DRDO has been developing equipment which is either sub-standard or have extended deadlines and additional budgets;

Many of the projects have been sanctioned without the requisite government approval. Only 10 per cent of projects have come to the ministry for clearance;

Corruption and nepotism exists in the upper echelons; There is an exodus of qualified scientists;

Waste products

Crores of rupees are spent on research that mostly flops

The CGDA audit findings raise serious questions on the capability of this defence outfit, which has an annual budget of Rs 10,500 crore. Established in 1958, it has a network of 52

Page 10

Module 5 [ ]

laboratories nationwide, employing 5,000 scientists with about 25,000 support staff. But only 29 per cent of the products developed during the last 17 years are being used by the Armed Forces. The audit notes that in several cases, DRDO bought equipment from other companies after spending crores on R&D. For instance, the CGDA found that after spending two years and Rs 29.96 crore to develop satellite signal monitoring, DRDO ultimately bought the same from a public sector undertaking on a single tender basis for Rs 24.50 crore in April 2011. “If such technologies are indeed commercially available, where was the need of a development project by DRDO?” the audit asked. DRDO also spent Rs 6.85 crore to develop explosive detectors, which were offered to the army for Rs 30 lakh each. Foreign versions of these are available off the shelf for Rs 9.8 lakh per piece, a price that also includes repair and maintenance.

The CGDA report criticised the ‘joint development’ technology initiative of DRDO, calling it “import of older, foreign technology under the disguise of joint development.” The CGDA accused DRDO of promoting Israeli company M/S SCD without the mandatory formal transfer of technology agreement. 

Basically, instead of doing development itself, DRDO is funding a foreign agency’s development effort, that too, without any explicit arrangements being finalised about ownership of intellectual property generated from such financing,

We are dangerously behind our adversaries. China is far ahead in indigenous technology in both tanks and missiles sector. DRDO’s claim of modern technology is too old when it is delivered to armed forces. It is a big disappointment”, observes security analyst Major General (Retd) Afsir Karim.

Flop wonders

Institutions without qualifications are promoted

The DRDO understandably refutes the findings. “These are only observations. The laid down procedure of audit was not followed, and it was issued without authorisation. It is a one-sided report. We will give a point by point reply of audit findings. DRDO has achieved several milestones and that nobody is talking about,” retorted Dr Ravi Gupta, DRDO’s official spokesperson. However, the CGDA report says that DRDO has tried to camouflage its failures in the name of secrecy and national security.

Rifle recoil: The mass produced INSAS rifle, meant to be the main rifle for the Indian Army has been known to malfunction in extreme conditions. The first known debacle was on August 7, 2005. As the evening shadows grew longer at the Royal Nepal Army’s Pili camp in western Kalikot district, about 550 km northwest of capital Kathmandu, Maoist fighters massed silently outside. The roads connecting the camp that housed about 200 soldiers — mostly employed in the construction of a new highway — had been mined. A little before 6 pm, over 1,000 Maoists attacked the camp. Armed with INSAS rifles, the Nepalese soldiers fought back, but in vain. By 4 pm, the Maoists had captured 100 soldiers, and executed 40 of them. Nepal blamed INSAS malfunctions for the disaster: “The rifles are okay if you fight for an hour or two, but are not appropriate for long battles. If we had better weapons, our casualties would have been much

Page 11

Module 5 [ ]

less,” said a Nepal government spokesman. In November 2011, the Ministry of Defence issued a tender for 66,000 assault rifles to replace the INSAS.

Computer Ethics

Ethics deals with placing a “value” on acts according to whether they are “good” or “bad”. Every society has its rules about whether certain acts are ethical or not. These rules have been established as a result of consensus in society and are often written into laws.

When computers first began to be used in society at large, the absence of ethical standards about their use and related issues caused some problems. However, as their use became widespread in every facet of our lives, discussions in computer ethics resulted in some kind of a consensus. Today, many of these rules have been formulated as laws, either national or international. Computer crimes and computer fraud are now common terms. There are laws against them, and everyone is responsible for knowing what constitutes computer crime and computer fraud.

The Ten Commandments of computer ethics have been defined by the Computer Ethics Institute. Here is our interpretation of them:

 1) Thou shalt not use a computer to harm other people: If it is unethical to harm people by making a bomb, for example, it is equally bad to write a program that handles the timing of the bomb. Or, to put it more simply, if it is bad to steal and destroy other people’s books and notebooks, it is equally bad to access and destroy their files.

 2) Thou shalt not interfere with other people's computer work: Computer viruses are small programs that disrupt other people’s computer work by destroying their files, taking huge amounts of computer time or memory, or by simply displaying annoying messages. Generating and consciously spreading computer viruses is unethical.

3) Thou shalt not snoop around in other people's files: Reading other people’s e-mail messages is as bad as opening and reading their letters: This is invading their privacy. Obtaining other people’s non-public files should be judged the same way as breaking into their rooms and stealing their documents. Text documents on the Internet may be protected by encryption.

4) Thou shalt not use a computer to steal: Using a computer to break into the accounts of a company or a bank and transferring money should be judged the same way as robbery. It is illegal and there are strict laws against it.

5) Thou shalt not use a computer to bear false witness: The Internet can spread untruth as fast as it can spread truth. Putting out false "information" to the world is bad. For instance, spreading false rumors about a person or false propaganda about historical events is wrong.

6) Thou shalt not use or copy software for which you have not paid: Software is an intellectual product. In that way, it is like a book: Obtaining illegal copies of copyrighted software is as bad as photocopying a copyrighted book. There are laws against both. Information

Page 12

Module 5 [ ]

about the copyright owner can be embedded by a process called  watermarking into pictures in the digital format.

7) Thou shalt not use other people's computer resources without authorization: Multiuser systems use user id’s and passwords to enforce their memory and time allocations, and to safeguard information.  You should not try to bypass this authorization system. Hacking a system to break and bypass the authorization is unethical.

8) Thou shalt not appropriate other people's intellectual output: For example, the programs you write for the projects assigned in this course are your own intellectual output. Copying somebody else’s program without proper authorization is software piracy and is unethical. Intellectual property is a form of ownership, and may be protected by copyright laws.

9) Thou shalt think about the social consequences of the program you write: You have to think about computer issues in a more general social framework: Can the program you write be used in a way that is harmful to society? For example, if you are working for an animation house, and are producing animated films for children, you are responsible for their contents. Do the animations include scenes that can be harmful to children? In the United States, the Communications Decency Act was an attempt by lawmakers to ban certain types of content from Internet websites to protect young children from harmful material. That law was struck down because it violated the free speech principles in that country's constitution. The discussion, of course, is going on.

10) Thou shalt use a computer in ways that show consideration and respect: Just like public buses or banks, people using computer communications systems may find themselves in situations where there is some form of queuing and you have to wait for your turn and generally be nice to other people in the environment. The fact that you cannot see the people you are interacting with does not mean that you can be rude to them

Engineers as expert witness

Professional engineers may be called upon to appear as expert witnesses in court proceedings, public inquiries, coroners’ inquests and other judicial and quasi-judicial hearings. Professional Engineers Ontario recognizes that professional engineers might not be aware of the variety of legal and quasi-legal hearings and actions in which they may become involved, the obligations and conduct expected of them in and before such proceedings, the procedures they must follow and the risks associated with their participation. For these reasons, the Professional Standards Committee has prepared a guideline to give professional engineers who might become involved in court proceedings or tribunals an idea of the situations that could arise and to provide suggestions aimed at making their services effective.

Page 13

Module 5 [ ]

Unlike fact witnesses whose testimony can describe only personal observations, experience or knowledge, expert witnesses are allowed, even expected, to express opinions about matters in which they have been accepted as having special knowledge that the average person does not possess. Expert witnesses are needed to interpret technical information for people who do not have the knowledge to evaluate it, understand its meaning and apply it to the process of making a decision about the matter at hand. The witness’ role goes beyond merely answering counsel’s questions, to ensuring that participants to the proceedings, which could be either judge and jury, or chair and panel, adequately understand the technical information or opinion being offered. In keeping with this role, the engineer as expert witness must ensure that the evidence presented is understandable, reasonable, balanced and substantiated by the evidence. Experts must understand their role is to be neutral and impartial servants of the court or tribunal they appear before, and not representatives or advocates of the party hiring them.

The court has the authority to determine whether a person offered as an opinion witness will be needed or likely to provide opinions relevant to the proceedings. Over the past few years, courts have developed high expectations about the impartiality and neutrality of expert witnesses. This expectation is based on the inability of courts or tribunals to challenge an expert’s opinion directly (because of their own lack of expertise).

THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF EXPERT WITNESSES

1. Expert evidence presented to the Court should be, and should be seen to be, the independent product of the expert uninfluenced as to form or content by the exigencies of litigation.

2. An expert witness should provide independent assistance to the Court by way of objective unbiased opinion in relation to matters within his expertise. An expert witness in the High Court should never assume the role of an advocate.

3. An expert witness should state the facts or assumption upon which his opinion is based. He should not omit to consider material facts which could detract from his concluded opinion.

4. An expert witness should make it clear when a particular question or issue falls outside his expertise.

5. If an expert’s opinion is not properly researched because he considers that insufficient data is available, then this must be stated with an indication that the opinion is no more than a provisional one. In cases where an expert witness who has prepared a report could not assert that the report contained the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth without some qualification, that qualification should be stated in the report.

6. If, after exchange of reports, an expert witness changes his view on a material matter having read the other side’s expert’s report or for any other reason, such change of viewshould be communicated (through client’s legal counsel) to theother side without delay and when appropriate to the Court.

Page 14

Module 5 [ ]

7. Where expert evidence refers to photographs, plans, calculations, analyses, measurements, survey reports or other similar documents, these must be provided to the opposite party at the same time as the exchange of reports.

Venues Where Expert Witnesses Appear

Examination for Discovery

Termed a pre-trial instrument of the court, examination for discovery involves a relatively informal oral examination of the witness by the opposing counsel, to determine what facts are in the possession of that witness. Responses are recorded, and transcripts are made. These may be used by opposing counsel during the trial, to challenge the witness’ credibility.

Interrogatory

A pre-hearing instrument of some tribunals, the interrogatory comprises a list of questions from opposing counsel that the witness must answer. This is usually accomplished by the witness responding first to his or her own counsel, or to retaining counsel, and after correction or adjustment, to opposing counsel. These answers, duly notarized, may also be used at the trial to discredit the witness.

The Courts of Law

Courts of law are normally intent on establishing matters of fact before they turn to issues of law. To accomplish this in instances where the testimony of non-engineers is not adequate, professional engineers may not only be required to state facts, but also to be accepted by the courts as experts permitted to give opinions based on the facts of the case. The role of expert witnesses in the courts of law is governed by the Rules of Civil Procedure and certain common law precedents that determine the admissibility and qualification of experts.

Appeal Hearings

Professional engineers involved in appeal hearings are required to be fully aware of what occurred at earlier hearings. They should read and become familiar with the transcript of their own testimony (if they testified earlier) and transcripts of all relevant testimony given at the earlier stages.

Before agreeing to accept a commission as an expert witness, professional engineers should review the issues to obtain some familiarity with them, to decide if they are the appropriate experts. Professional engineers should never take on commissions unless they are competent in the subject matter

Conflict of Interest

Page 15

Module 5 [ ]

Professional engineers should examine their personal or professional involvement in the affairs of any of the parties to the action or the inquiry, to be able to assure clients and other parties that they have no conflicts of interest. Engineers must inform their clients if they have any connection with any of the parties or participants in the matter, or have any personal or professional interest in the matter that might be affected by the outcome of the action. Even though these connections or interests may not prejudice their judgment, professional engineers must be wary of any situation that might cause someone to question the independence of their judgment.

Confidentiality

In day-to-day practice, professional engineers have an ethical, and often a contractual, obligation to keep secret and confidential any information obtained and opinions or judgments provided in the course of work undertaken on behalf of a client.

Typically the engagement would involve one agreement covering the following stages:

1. Investigation and research and providing preliminary views;

2. Completion of investigation and forming opinion;

3. Providing an expert report;

4. Reviewing and responding to the other side’s expert report;

5. Responding to questions about the original report or the other side’s reports;

6. Preparing for testifying; and

7. Testifying.

Expert Witness–person with specialized knowledge of a technical or scientific subject, whose testimony includes interpretation of the facts and the giving of opinions about their relevance in making judgments about the matter under consideration.

Evidence–any information furnished in a legal proceeding, either by witnesses or documents, to support a contention. Engineers are cautioned that the use of the word “evidence” in engineering contexts sometimes has a different meaning than its use in the courts.

Fact–something known to exist or to have occurred. Facts are usually perceived directly through the five senses. Practitioners are cautioned to make a clear distinction between opinion and fact. Fact witness–person providing testimony of personal observations or experience, or of known facts related to the matter under consideration.

Opinion–a belief or judgment based on the analysis of facts rather than the direct observation of the facts themselves.

Page 16

Module 5 [ ]

Trier of fact–a person or group of people who assess the evidence presented during a legal proceeding and decide what the facts are. To decide a fact is to judge whether something existed or some event occurred. The trier of fact may be the judge, the jury, or a panel in a hearing or tribunal.

Engineers as expert advisors

An expert advisor, sometimes also known as an independent expert, can be appointed by a party to assist in the formulation and/or preparation of a party’s claim or defence. He has an overriding duty to those instructing him and not the court, but this will normally include an obligation to the client to explain both the strength and weaknesses of both sides.

• In larger and more complex cases, it is usual for the parties to employ expert advisors to liaise with the court’s appointed expert witness and use the expert advisor as a ‘sounding board’

• Instructions given to an expert advisor will invariably be privileged from disclosure and therefore not disclosable to the other party

• In some circumstances, if there is only a small pool of experts in the particular field where the court-appointed expert is required, the expert advisor can move to being a court-appointed expert advisor, provided that he understands his new role as independent expert and his overriding duty to the court. If this happens, then a new set of instructions will be provided to the expert (which are disclosable)

• The fees incurred as a result of appointing an expert advisor are unlikely to be recoverable from the other party, even if the other party is ordered to pay your costs.

Instructions and privilege

• It is important to note that the expert witness is required to set out all material instructions in his expert reports. Such material instructions are not protected by privilege • Instructions to an expert advisor, who is then subsequently appointed as a court-appointed expert, will usually be privileged from disclosure to the other party. However, to safeguard against such instructions being disclosable, new instructions should be provided to the expert in his role as court-appointed expert witness.

Independence of the expert

• It is usual for court-appointed expert witnesses to be completely independent of either party. Although the court can permit employees (or related persons) of a party to be an expert witness (if that is where the appropriate level of expertise lies), the employee-turned-expert must comply with his overriding duty to the court

Page 17

Module 5 [ ]

• When choosing an expert, a party must refrain from ‘expert shopping’. Whilst it is permissible for parties to change their experts, the permission of the court is needed and the court may require the party to produce the original expert witness’s report to the court and the other party

• Whilst the parties can identify the issues to be dealt with in experts’ reports, it must be the expert witness who drafts his expert report. Parties and their expert witnesses can get into trouble if substantial parts of the expert report had been drafted by the instructing party and/or his lawyers.

Discussions between experts

• Experts will meet to discuss the issues in dispute, either by agreement or following a court order. They will produce a joint statement setting out the extent of any agreement between them and the points of, and short reasons for, any disagreement.

Expert Evidence at trial

• Oral expert evidence can only be given at trial with the court’s permission

• Experts no longer have immunity from suit for breach of duty. It is still not possible, however, for an opposing party to bring a claim against an expert.

Importance of studying ethics

The members of the professions, including engineering, find themselves in a world of ever increasing ethical complexity, brought about by increasing social and commercial pressures, and by changes in the nature of the professions themselves. To enable engineering graduates to deal effectively with these challenges we must ensure that, as students, they develop moral autonomy. To achieve this they must be exposed to a wide range of ethical issues including, the nature of ethics and moral decision making, and the relationship between science, engineering, technology and society, as well as the concept of professional ethics and the application of the code of ethics. 

Page 18