Pipeline Whistleblowing: Getting the Ethics Right
It was reported recently that an engineer for TransCanada, Evan Vokes, has now gone public with claims that the pipeline company has been lax in the standards it applies to having its pipelines inspected.
Whistleblowing is among the most complex ethical issues in the world of business. Whistleblowers are people who demonstrate that there is — there must be — a limit to the loyalty of even a dedicated employee. Whistleblowers go outside the boundaries of their organization to report actual or immanent wrongdoing. They often prevent grievous harm, but in doing so they inevitably impugn the character of their organizations, and sometimes of their co-workers. And of course, there’s always the worry that the self-appointed whistleblower is actually just a malcontent bent on revenge. But such cases aside, whistleblowers perform an essential public service.
A few points are worth making about the TransCanada case in particular.
The first is that, at least as the story is told by the CBC, Vokes is the perfect whistleblower. He’s got the relevant expertise (he’s both a welder and an engineer) and he’s got a reputation for honesty and integrity. Further, Vokes carried out the whistleblowing properly: he proceeded in perfect ethics-textbook fashion by first making his concerns known to his superiors, and then escalating up chain of command. Only when it became clear that internal channels weren’t working did he go outside of the company to bring his concerns to the relevant regulatory agency.
Second, the fact that Vokes felt the need to blow the whistle suggests a failure of leadership within the company. According the the CBC’s report, Vokes made his concerns clear all the way up the corporate hierarchy, and everyone “right up to the chief executive officer refused to act on his complaints.” A
“It’s fine” — just like NASA’s space shuttle Challenger
The latest update to this story, of course, is that TransCanada has now temporarily shut down its Keystone pipeline, citing safety concerns.
This is the prime example of how to report unethical behavior, In you own companies you work with you need to know the proper reporting proceures that are in place and use them.
The question here is : Is whistle blowing an good or bad?
What i feel:- What Vokes has done is ethically correct. He followed the proper channel, which is to approach his manager, seniors and that companies head.
He was dissatisfied with the overall support he received from the company, which is when he decided to go a head with whistleblowing.
I would start with a question as to the need to justify. The need to justify does not arise unless there is a reason to believe it wrong. This opens the conversation as to the reason of whistle blowing.
In the blog Chris acknowledges whistle blowing as a complex ethical choice made by an employee. It might be pushing it a bit too much in branding Vokes as a perfect whistleblower. However he has demonstrated many traits which can justifiably be branded as act of moral whistle blowing. So the question of need to justify, from Vokes perspective, is the reason to believe something as morally right or morally wrong.
Chris has rightly pointed out the position of Vokes and his approach before going public as a whistle blower. Actions and approach of Vokes is very much in line with the theory of complicity (The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand, 2009). This is demonstrated by the facts in the blog that Vokes has moral reasoning to go public as:
His revelations were in line with his area of expertise
He was working voluntarily as an engineer
He believed that TransCanada are doing serious moral wrong
His belief that his non-disclosure might affect the members of public in future
However my point of view changes from here for Vokes as not a model whistle blower. Standard theory of acceptable whistle blowing requires the whistle blower to identify serious harm to public and requires believing that the act of whistle blowing would prevent reasonable harm in future (The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand, 2009). There is evidence indicating that as per governing agency NEB the pipeline “do not represent immediate threats to the safety of people or the environment”. Also as a result of Vokes’s act the pipeline was shut down temporarily and it resulted in financial loss to the company (CBC News, 2012).
To a certain degree it is also right to say “a limit to loyalty of even a dedicated employee”. Again I am with Chris to a larger extent but would still not call Vokes as a perfect whistle blower on scale of loyalty. Vokes’s actions are in line with standard theory of acceptable whistle blowing by the facts that:
He exhausted all the internal procedures within TransCanada
Reported potential harm to his immediate superiors and the harm to public
According to Ronald Duska there are many authors to believe that ultimate aim of the company is to make profit and not an emotional relationship where you can expect loyalty. Money is what ties the companies together and not loyalty as a basis of binding (The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand, 2009). This argument is also supported by Kant’s categorical imperative that there should be the duty and respect for law, which apparently was done by Vokes. Kant also advocated to make it a universal law to not to use others as means to meet your ends (Wikipedia, 2012). Combining this with the fact that money is what ties the company together then Vokes did the right thing by blowing the whistle and even if he is called as disloyal he is morally justified as he believed TransCanada comprising public safety for their own good.
Strictly from my perspective I would not brand Vokes as loyal or disloyal branding him as a perfect whistle blower. If I place myself in Vokes’s shoes I see upon me paradoxes of burden, harm, missing harm and preventing the harm (Davis, 1996). As Vokes I have a strong reason to argue that my obligation was derived from my involvement as an engineer and so to blow the whistle to prevent potential harm. However it is questionable from here if due to my personal belief system I am automatically avoiding the paradoxes of preventing and missing the harm. From a Utilitarian ethics maxim of greatest happiness, Vokes compromised his duty of loyalty to the company and public and his act did not eventually result in greater happiness (Wikipedia, 2012). The evidences that pipeline was found safe at that time of inspection by NEB and that it was temporarily closed. However, later on, such inspections by independent contractors were made compulsory for such businesses increasing the overall cost of operations. Ethicist Sisela Bok and author Norman Bowie considers such act of whistle blowing as an act of disloyalty. Both Bok and Bowie say that such act of disloyalty can be supported only if the greater public good is done (The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand, 2009). But in reality did Vokes act of disloyalty override and do a greater public good?
Chris is right in sayings that “whistle blowers perform an essential public service” however such an act cannot be encouraged as a universal law and would not fit many criteria of virtue ethics. Even though if we follow footsteps of Vokes in terms of his engagement at work and pointing the leadership failure then also the virtue of having insider information can be misused by a whistle blower as an act of revenge or personal greed. The consequences could lead to major economic loss such as financial loss to corporation, job loss of employees, lack of trust within the company, spying and corporate espionage (The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand, 2009). The cost to whistle blow and the cost to the society should both be considered at the same time.
To conclude and keeping Vokes in perspective I would say it is a question about paradox of knowledge. Knowledge for Vokes was what he believed due to his role as an engineer. However it has to be justified that both in future and at present the belief was justified and true in nature. The belief that my current belief cannot be proven wrong in future. This also answers the issue of loyalty as to whether to show if we know anything or not. Hence Vokes fits right in most of the paradoxes but still falls short of being called as a perfect whistle blower referee to stop the game.
References
Reference:
CBC News. (2012, October 17). Whistleblower forced investigation of TransCanada Pipelines. Retrieved January 12, 2013, from CBC News Canada: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/10/16/transcanada-whistleblower-neb.html
Chris MacDonald. (2012, October 19). Pipeline Whistleblowing: Getting the Ethics Right. Retrieved January 12, 2013, from The Business Ethics Blog: http://businessethicsblog.com/2012/10/19/pipeline-whistleblowing-ethics/#comment-8792
Colero, L. (2010). A Framework For Universal Principles of Ethics. Retrieved November 24, 2012, from http://www.ethics.ubc.ca: http://www.ethics.ubc.ca/papers/invited/colero.html
Davis, M. (1996). Some paradoxes of whistleblowing. Business and Professional Ethics Journal , Vol 15, 3-19.
The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand. (2009). Business Ethics. Some Paradoxes of whistleblowing , p. Reading 2.3.
The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand. (2009). Business Ethics. Whistleblowing and employee loyalty , p. Reading 2.2.
Wikipedia. (2012, November 16). Categorical imperative. Retrieved December 2012, 5, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#cite_note-Ellington-1
Wikipedia. (2012, November 21). Utilitarianism. Retrieved November 25, 2012, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#cite_note-78
In your blog you say that even the most dedicated that there must be a limit to the amount of loyalty that an employee has towards the business. I would argue that there should be no reason why any employee should have any loyalty to the company they work for. A business exists is to make profit because if they aren’t making a profit the business will eventually cease to exist. The only exception where an employee might be loyal is where they have an interest in the business, for example a family business where there is sentimental value or tradition. Loyalty is reciprocal and in my experience is not reciprocated by any business. For example if a business can make more profit or less loss from making some of their employees redundant or firing them they would without a question.
Vokes demonstrates this quite clearly as he has done everything right as he could’ve just blown the whistle without even going to his superiors. The fact that he has gone up the hierarchy in his company to bring these issues to light and nothing was done about it to me shows how disloyal a company can be. As this is internal whistle blowing it would’ve been in the best interest of the company to investigate such claims at this point and dealt with it rather than having it go public where claims of substandard pipeline inspections would have a negative impact on the company.
I would also question the ethics of those that did nothing when they were informed by Vokes of these issues. Once Vokes had raised these issues with his superiors it should’ve been the ethical duty of the company and those that had been informed to make sure that the standards were being met as it would be their responsibility to ensure a safe work place and clean environment. The fact that external whistle blowing was needed in this case reflects badly on all those that were informed and Trans Canada as a company.
In this case I would say that not only did Vokes do everything right but he also had a ethical duty to whistle blow as the standards ensure a safe place to work and would also protect the environment from possible harmful pollutants that may flow through the pipeline. In fact I would say that Vokes has shown loyalty, by going to his superiors first so that they could have a chance to investigate his claims before he went public. Vokes may have loyalty to his fellow work mate but even here I think it would be more a sense of ethical duty in that if the means to a safer work place was to whistle blow then this would increase happiness or decrease suffering overall and is therefore justified.
This is also supported by Ronald Duska’s claim that loyalty is an emotional response to another person, whereas the only obligation an employee has to their employer is a contractual one and no loyalty owed. “Duska’s claim is that one can have obligations of loyalty to, and expect loyalty from, real people with whom one has personal relationships, such as friends and family.”2 An employer (business is not something you can have a personal relationship with and by Duska’s claim there would be no loyalty owed.
From the point of the employer they would want to instill as big a sense of loyalty as possible to its employees. As Paul R. Lawrence says “Ideally, we would want one sentiment to be dominant in all employees from top to bottom, namely a complete loyalty to the organizational purpose.”1 This would obviously be of benefit to any organization if everyone was committed to the organization purpose as productivity would increase as employees would be willing to work longer, sacrificing their own time for the good of the business, there would also be less turnover in staff which would benefit in retaining the intellectual property that individuals hold in relation to their roles.
In conclusion I would say there is no loyalty between employer and employee as it is merely a contract between two parties and therefore no loyalty exists between them. The only obligations each would have to the other are stipulated within the employment contract.
References:
1. Paul R. Lawrence, The Changing of Organizational Behavior Patterns: A Case Study of Decentralization (Boston Division of Research, Harvard Business School, 1958(, 208, as quoted in Ken
2. The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand. (2012). Module Two. In 71203 Business ethics. Lower Hutt, NZ: Scholes.
What is loyalty in regards to the loyalty a person has for their employer? What does an employer expect in the way of loyalty from its employees? These questions are very complicated as there is not one correct answer for either. The general statement you have made regarding the limit to the amount of loyalty a person has for their employer demonstrated by whistle-blowers is a very one sided view. A whistleblower that has made the attempt to contain the issue internally which is the case within the TransCanada situation, should be viewed as a loyal employee. Considering internal whistle-blowing would normally be a positive thing for a company as it is within their best interests to take an opportunity to find out about and deal with any problems that could cause harm to the company if disclosed (The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand, 2009). The internal whistle-blower should be seen to be protecting the primary business function of profit making as the issue the whistle-blower is most often raising could cause potential harm to the business in many different ways often creating profit loss to occur. The blowing of the whistle internally should be seen to be acting according to the contractual agreement made between both employee and employer as the employee is only fulfilling their work conditions by reporting any issue affecting good work to be produced. Within any contractual agreement made there would be no mention of loyalty and should not be a specific expected, if not given. “It is important to recognize that in any relationship which demands loyalty the relationship works both ways and involves mutual agreement” (Duska, R. F., 1990, p.144) which has not occurred within the TransCanada situation as the employer has shown no loyalty to their employee by ignoring their concerns. The ignorance towards whistle-blowers can be very crutial proven by many situations including the disaster of the Pike River Mine. Internal whistle-blowing had occurred in this particular situation in a very large scale in a very short amount of time (Department of Internal Affairs, 2010). Ignorance of the whistle blowing lead to a massive tragedy of 29 lives being lost. This tragedy could easily have been avoided. The leak of information to an external source would no doubt have done a lot more good than the internal attempt which gives external whistle-blowing a more positive light. Applying Kantian moral theory to the TransCanada situation shows that the agent should take the whistle-blowing to an external source. It could be passed as universal law to speak out about the situation as well as telling the truth which is also respecting people as ends in themselves. The Utilitarian approach would also support external whistle-blowing in the TransCanada situation. Though the company would suffer financial losses and be forced to reduce employees the greater good would be achieved by preventing harm to people living around the pipeline. Not speaking out about the situation would be seen as immoral. Without an ideal relationship reflecting loyalty and loyalty uncovered within the contractual agreement there becomes no obligation to keep the whistle-blowing within the business when unheard. The need to go to the extent of external whistle-blowing shows that the business itself has no loyalty towards their employee as the privacy of the employee becomes jeopardized, the very real possibility of retaliation becomes a threat, as well as the pure fact that the business should never want an employee to suffer through a situation of choosing between honesty and ignorance. Taking all of this into account shows that a whistle-blower attempting to deal with a situation internally is loyal to the employer they work for by trying to protect the business from harm or financial loss. But forced to blow the whistle externally shows loyalty for those possibly affected as the correct actions have not been taken by those in positions to cure the situation. The action becomes a moral action. The only disloyalty being internal or external whistle-blowing is held by the employer. The loyalty limit does not exist for the employee blowing the whistle.
REFERENCES
Duska, R. F. (1990). Whistle blowing and employee loyalty. In J. R. Desjardins & J. J.McCall (Eds.), Contemporary issues in business ethics (2nd ed., pp. 142-147). Belmont CA: Wadsworth.
Department of Internal Affairs. (2010). Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy. Retrieved on 2 February 2013 from http://pikeriver.royalcommission.govt.nz/Volume-One—Overview
The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand. (2009). 71203 Business Ethics. Lower Hutt, New Zealand: The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand.