Jason. Great topic to discuss. From my initial research, I also strongly suspect, that the Grenfell tower incident may also be a failure of the Engineering discipline to ring the alarm bells. The Engineering community should be more vocal and speak out, but without any legal protection, you do run the severe risk of having no job at the end of the despite being correct and principled.


As a perspective in Canada, we have an act of law which lays out some fundamental rules.  We as licensed Professional Engineers do have a 'duty to report', as we are primarily protecting public safety but we also have a secondary duty towards the client and the employer. It is only when we have exhausted attempts at trying to bring our concerns to the client and employer and no action has been taken and the safety issues remain, are we then legally obliged to 'Whistleblow'. We have had a good case here in Ottawa with an Engineer calling out developers on flood plains. I may try to find the link, but it's a very convoluted story. Our profession here calls for us to have a legal and ethics exam before obtaining a license and this is very good grounding for any new engineer to know before being drawn into the contractual minefields that await. Ironically the Canadian law books have numerous examples of British case law, so undoubtedly these could be equally applicable to the UK even now.   My personal opinion is that all members should at least have a basic grounding and know their rights and obligations and of course as a pre-requisite we should know the IET has its own rules of conduct to follow. Perhaps we need to start a community of law and ethics?  There is probably some great wise sages out there full of contractual knowledge and tales!


In response to your bullets

• The initial requirements specification would have been signed off by multiple people. - Of course, traceability is very important and should be inherent in your quality system. At this point, the requests for alteration of the specification should have been challenged. As an Engineer, I would have insisted that any illegal changes be communicated in writing to trace back to that person who initiated this.  A simple communication tool is to write back with the understanding of what has been requested with its flaws and request confirmation. I think in the case of a telephone call the Civil Engineers call this a CVI  Confirmation of Verbal Instruction.... Great for those " well I didn't mean it that way when we discussed this!"

• The code would have likely been authored by more than one engineer. No different to many products and those engineers will also likely be of differing abilities. But the authoring of that software should still meet the requirements whether right or wrong. These guys probably couldn't be held responsible especially if coding software modules and didn't know the overall system definition 

• The architecture and code would have been reviewed thoroughly and signed off by others who did not design or code it. Yes, indeed and a lot of software requires independence to get an improved oversight. From what I have regularly seen, is that the test specification is not always derived from the initial requirements specification, it becomes a sort of interpretive evolution of the design- This is always big trouble as you essentially test to a different set of requirements and don't test for failures in interpretation of the original requirements. Surprisingly this still happens and on some major projects. 

• There would have been a final engineering sign off by the chief engineer and/or the technical director prior to release for production. Absolutely correct, this is the person responsible, they are in control of the process, individuals and quality they are the ones that are culpable. If their engineering organisation has not been ethical then they are only to blame as they are in a position to challenge this. However, if they tried to address the organisations failings and were not successful then that blame should be with the directors

• That is quite a number of people who could have spoken out but didn't (or they didn't do their jobs properly when reviewing and signing off) -  So the defendant - James R Laing is called an Engineer so he should fall under the Michigan PE bye-laws. No idea how strong these are, but surprisingly I am not seeing anything being generated by MSPE chapters on his affiliation ( if indeed there is one). The actual lawsuit is Laing + co-conspirators.... a deal has been done to cooperate..... I suspect the legal authorities are not convinced this was just of Laing's doing and there perhaps is more to come on this..... allegedly. Very interesting one to follow. I may ask around and see what's happening over here.

As I understand the matter, he pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States, to commit wire fraud and to violation of the federal Clean Air Act for his role in the implementation of so-called “defeat devices.”  These seem to be deliberate fraudulent acts by an individual and his co-conspirators and not merely a failure to report, ignorance or incompetence. 


I'm not a lawyer, but from what I have read, along with his co-conspirators, he began developing a new diesel engine in 2006 with the purpose of creating a product to comply with heightened U.S. emissions regulations.  Liang and his co-conspirators sought not to design a compliant engine, but, instead, knowlingly developed a software enabled defeat device. The device was specifically designed to recognize when it was being subjected to U.S. emissions testing, as opposed to regular road driving.  Moreover, as some diesel vehicles began to age and have warranty claims related to emissions parts and components, Volkswagen introduced a software upgrade in 2014 that increased the precision of the defeat device, but was announced to consumers as a method to adjust the vehicle’s steering wheel angle.  In total, Liang helped facilitate the installation of diesel engines with defeat devices in approximately 500,000 Volkswagen vehicles between 2009 and 2015.  That's a massive fraud against the US population and significantly impacted the quality of the air in US cities.  There are many victims to this fraud, not just the consumers who purchased these vehicles.

US law protects those who blow the whistle on potential or actual threats to the environment. Whistleblowers have a right to report environmental violations and to be free from retaliation for doing so. They may also be able to obtain money damages and other relief from those who violate environmental laws or retaliate against whistleblowers.

Seven major federal environmental laws have special provisions protecting corporate whistleblowers:

1. the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. § 7622

• the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. § 2622

• the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) (a.k.a. Clean Water Act), 33 U.S.C. § 1367

• the Energy Reorganization Act (ERA) (also encompassing the Atomic Energy Act), 42 U.S.C. § 5851

• the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (also encompassing the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA)), id. § 6901

• the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), id. § 300j-9(i)

• the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (a.k.a. Superfund), id. § 9610

In addition, the False Claims Act offers environmental whistleblowers both a financial incentive to report wrongdoing in connection with federal contracts or other benefits and protection from retaliation for investigating and filing suit under the False Claims Act. 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3730.

I think Jason has raised an interesting question (even if it may not apply to this particular case). In the UK there is general legal protection for whistleblowers - nice guide here www.mylawyer.co.uk/.../


BUT what this means in practice is that, for example, if you lose your job you can claim for unfair dismissal at a tribunal and hopefully (if your lawyers make a better case then your ex-employers lawyers) get some compensation. Great if you can walk into another job reasonably quickly, not so great if you can't (or don't think you will be able to).


I don't know of any cases in engineering which have gone wrong this way (and indeed I do know cases where the company affected has protected the whistleblower where the senior management realised - because of the whistleblowing - that a rogue division was putting the company at risk). But for anyone interested it's worth reading Dr Phil Hammond's articles about whistleblowing in the NHS (UK Heath Service), where despite legal protection whistleblowers still found themselves jobless in practice. (It's also worth going to see him speak, I found him very entertaining.)


So I agree, I think this would be a useful area for the IET to look at to consider whether the engineering profession is adequately protected such that engineers will act professionally - i.e. pointing out when their company is doing something potentially against the public interest, particularly which they appreciate due to their specialist technical knowledge. Maybe it will decide that it is, but if engineers don't KNOW that it is they still won't whistleblow (enough).


At the very least a good study into this would make an interesting article in E&T. (Apologies if there's been one and I misssed it.) 


Thanks David for the clarification on the VW case, the issue re "abdicating responsibility to speak out" seems to relate more to the arguments over his sentencing rather than whether he was guilty or not guilty of the charges. In the end, anyone who knows know their company is committing criminal acts where they are in any way involved probably needs to consider very carefully their legal standing as an accessory - I believe in the UK the definition is "Whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of any indictable offence, whether the same be an offence at common law or by virtue of any Act passed or to be passed, shall be liable to be tried, indicted, and punished as a principal offender." I wouldn't want to be arguing my freedom in court over the exact legal meaning of the word "abet"!  


Cheers, Andy

Thanks David, for that very comprehensive response. Do you know if the Engineer in question was actually licenced to practice. I couldn't find out much about that but maybe the professional engineering institutions were not forthcoming on that issue?  I skimmed the legal proceedings but nothing jumped out.

Gareth - I'm not sure if he was licensed to practice engineering or not in California or Michigan.
Click here to look up California Professional Licensees.  I'm not sure how to look up PE's in Michigan.

For those with interest in this topic and its implications for corporate governance and the protection of shareholder value, here are some intersting resources to learn more:
Helping Employees Raise Concerns (Volume 7, Issue 2, International Business Ethics Review)
A Global Perspective on Whistleblowing by Lori Tansey Martens and Amber Kelleher
Maintaining Effective Helplines by Roland Riebl
Installing an Effective Helpline
International Whistleblowing Legislation

International Standards and Global Codes (Volume 8, Issue 1, International Business Ethics Review)
Are Standards Becoming Standard Operating Procedures? An International Update by Dr. Anita B. Baker
Writing an Effective Global Code of Conduct by Lori Tansey Martens


The strength of a company's internal controls and anti-retaliation policy for whistleblowers (or its absence) and the independence of the chief ethics officer, or compliance officer, is often a good indicator of a company's ethics and the likelyhood that problems will come to light before they destroy too much shareholder value.

Just for the record I have already confirmed with the IET headquarters  that the two individuals who were convicted in the US courts were NOT IET members.


The third, Giovanni Pamio an Italian Citizen who worked for Audi in Germany has been arrested and is in a German jail. The US has formally requested that be be brought to the US for trial.


Peter Brooks

I admit that I have not been following this case, however, I would hope that none of those involved are professionally registered with the UK Engineering Council via one of the UK institutions.


After all professional registration certainly in the UK, requires an agreement to, sign up to & abide by a professional code of conduct.



#E5

Hi,

I see that many have focused on the specifics of the VW case. While interesting in itself I was intending to see if there was any support from the IET and other professional engineering bodies for engineers who find themselves in (similar) situations which would allow them to confidently stand up against their superiors within whatever organisation they are working within.

Rather than look to see if the VW engineers are members of the IET or other bodies and seek to expel them, I would suggest the professional bodies actively seek to speak to them in as much depth as possible. Learn what went wrong... What pressures were they under? Their jobs / livelihood threatened by their line managers if they didn't follow the instructions given? Some industries such as automotive are close knit communities - a bad word from a senior figure in the industry could completely destroy a career. Did their company have procedures in place to allow them to speak up against what was going on with out fear of some kind of retaliation. Retaliation doesn't just come in the form of unfair dismissal. Your line manager may just give you the most boring and menial tasks, exclude you from interesting projects, exclude you from key meetings / decisions.

While some may be brave enough and financially stable enough to make a bold stand against something that they think is wrong, some people may be in more difficult situations where they can't afford not to be taking home a salary - even if only for a short time whilst they find another job. You may have kids and a family relying on you to put on the table.

Rather than demonising those engineers involved in recent cases I think it of greater benefit to ask what went wrong and what lessons could be learned from them in order to make the engineering community much stronger and to have the power and confidence to do the right thing when they come up against similar to those we see in the news.

We all know that we should seek to do the right thing as professional engineers. My question is what tools and backing does the IET (and other professional bodies) and its' members give to any member who might find themselves in such an unfortunate position as having to stand up against their line manager, senior management, and even an entire organisation? Where is the support / back up? If we do not have any support / back up at the present time... Is it time that the IET and Engineering Council start to put in place mechanisms and support? What support is appropriate and most effective?

Hello Jason:


If I understand you correctly, you are proposing that the IET and other similar professional organizations intercede between the employer and the employee on perceived  grievances. 


In other words you want these organizations to become "Worldwide Professional Unions" !


I believe that this is impossible, as we fully move into the "Gig Economy" where individuals are hired for a limited time for specific projects and when complete, bid on other jobs at other companies and locations around the world.


Peter Brooks