Ethics in engineering Find copy of the code of ethics of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers and use it to analyze what a process engineer working at this plant should have dour What dors the code say about the responsibilities of the engineers who designed the plant and the engineers responsible for making maintenance decisions? What responsibility does Union Carbide have for the actions of its subsidiaries? Union Carbide India was 50% owned by the patent company. Solution POINT A. Members of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers shall uphold and advance the integrity, honor and dignity of the engineering profession by: being honest and impartial and serving with fidelity their employers, their clients, and the public; striving to increase the competence and prestige of the engineering profession; and using their knowledge and skill for the enhancement of human welfare. To achieve these goals, members shall 1. Responsibilities of the Engineers Who designed the plant. The public welfare. The employer. The government. The engineering profession. Engineers should act ethically because: If they don’t, they risk getting demoted or fired. The boss wants them to. It feels good. That’s the way responsible engineers behave. It helps them avoid legal problems, such as getting used. It provides a clear definition of what the public has a right to expect from responsible engineers. It raises the image of the profession and hence gets engineers more pay. The public will trust engineers more once they know engineers have a code of ethics. 2. Decision making problems. POINT B: Bhopal: pinning down responsibility Bhopal is to India what Chernobyl is to the Ukraine: a catastrophic accident that lives on not just in the minds but in the physical bodies of those affected. At least, 3,800 people died (unofficial figures are nearly double) when the US-owned Union Carbide factory sprung a toxic gas leak back in 1984. Thousands more were crippled. Even today, hundreds of children in Bhopal are born with congenital birth defects. Union Carbide (now a fully owned subsidiary of chemicals giant Dow Chemical) tried alleging sabotage by a disgruntled employee. No evidence has ever emerged. Instead the facts point to sloppy safety measures brought on by cost cutting and management oversight. The Bhopal disaster highlights an interesting and largely unacknowledged aspect of corporate responsibility: namely, how ill defined its borders still remain. Just where does ‘responsibility’ start and where does it stop? Technical responsibility clearly falls at Union Carbide’s door. It was the company’s over-full holding tank that leaked. Legal responsibility should be equally as clear. It’s not. At the time, the US headquarters of Union Carbide said it wasn’t responsible for day-to-day operations of the plant. That fell to its subsidiary, Union Carbide India Limited, in which it had a 50.9% stake. Union Carbide eventually paid up $470 million in compensation, but s.

1. Ethics in engineering Find copy of the code of ethics of the American Institute of Chemical
Engineers and use it to analyze what a process engineer working at this plant should have dour
What dors the code say about the responsibilities of the engineers who designed the plant and the
engineers responsible for making maintenance decisions? What responsibility does Union
Carbide have for the actions of its subsidiaries? Union Carbide India was 50% owned by the
patent company.
Solution
POINT A.
Members of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers shall uphold and advance the
integrity, honor and dignity of the engineering profession by: being honest and impartial and
serving with fidelity their employers, their clients, and the public; striving to increase the
competence and prestige of the engineering profession; and using their knowledge and skill for
the enhancement of human welfare. To achieve these goals, members shall
1. Responsibilities of the Engineers Who designed the plant.
The public welfare.
The employer.
The government.
The engineering profession.
Engineers should act ethically because:
If they don’t, they risk getting demoted or fired.
The boss wants them to.
It feels good.
That’s the way responsible engineers behave.
It helps them avoid legal problems, such as getting used.
It provides a clear definition of what the public has a right to expect from responsible engineers.
It raises the image of the profession and hence gets engineers more pay.
The public will trust engineers more once they know engineers have a code of ethics.
2. Decision making problems.
POINT B: Bhopal: pinning down responsibility
Bhopal is to India what Chernobyl is to the Ukraine: a catastrophic accident that lives on not just
in the minds but in the physical bodies of those affected.
At least, 3,800 people died (unofficial figures are nearly double) when the US-owned Union
Carbide factory sprung a toxic gas leak back in 1984. Thousands more were crippled. Even

2. today, hundreds of children in Bhopal are born with congenital birth defects.
Union Carbide (now a fully owned subsidiary of chemicals giant Dow Chemical) tried alleging
sabotage by a disgruntled employee. No evidence has ever emerged. Instead the facts point to
sloppy safety measures brought on by cost cutting and management oversight.
The Bhopal disaster highlights an interesting and largely unacknowledged aspect of corporate
responsibility: namely, how ill defined its borders still remain. Just where does ‘responsibility’
start and where does it stop?
Technical responsibility clearly falls at Union Carbide’s door. It was the company’s over-full
holding tank that leaked. Legal responsibility should be equally as clear. It’s not. At the time, the
US headquarters of Union Carbide said it wasn’t responsible for day-to-day operations of the
plant. That fell to its subsidiary, Union Carbide India Limited, in which it had a 50.9% stake.
Union Carbide eventually paid up $470 million in compensation, but said its legal liabilities
ended there.
As for the personal responsibility of the company’s management, Union Carbide’s chief
executive has deftly dodged any number of civil and criminal cases. Seven other senior
executives were recently found guilty, two and a half decades after the event. All obtained the
right of appeal, as Chhabara observes in his blog. So no-one - neither the company nor those
charged with running it – are left carrying the can.
Where things get really confusing is moral responsibility. In paying up, Union Carbide says it
met its “moral obligations” to the victims. Campaigners say the payment was immorally low
(roughly $1,000 for every victim). There’s still the clean up bill to think about too.
Is it time to change the rules? Should, as Ethical Corporation asked five years ago, the rules of
limited liability be changed for cases of gross social and environmental damage?
This tragic story does have one silver lining. As Chhabara points out, the Bhopal gas tragedy
woke the international chemicals industry up to potential safety hazards.
Under the ‘Responsible Care’ programme, launched in the wake of the disaster, the industry now
boasts a comprehensive certification system.
Nothing on the scale of the Union Carbide leak has happened since. The question of who should
take ultimate responsibility for the Bhopal crisis, and how, remains unresolved. However, the
lessons of responsible management have – hopefully – been learned.