Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions at IIT

Home >> Codes of Ethics Online >> Institute of Food Science and Technology

Conflicts Involving Professional Ethics

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Difficulties are encountered in situations where:-

(a) a given ethical principle implies responsibility or loyalty in opposing directions

(b) more than one ethical principle is involved, and conforming with one of these appears to offend against another.

1.2 This Guideline cannot give a definite course of action in the case of such ethical dilemmas, but it can, however, underline some of the forms in which ethical dilemmas arise, and provide helpful pointers for individuals to bear in mind.

1.3 In an ethical dilemma, the individual has 2 options:-

(a) Choose one of the available courses, for which decision he or she must accept responsibility;

(b) Look for a new option which would serve both apparently opposing loyalties (in 1.1 (a)) or be consistent with all the principles (in 1.1 (b)).

1.4 Where the latter solution is not apparent, the individual's decision may be made easier by consulting an independent opinion-e.g. an experienced professional person, even the Professional Conduct Committee of the Institute. Confidentiality may be maintained by describing the problem in outline or by analogy.

1.5 In seeking a basis for decision, it would be all to easy to generalise on the principle that the public interest should always be given precedence over private interest. This generalisation begs a number of questions which are referred to in Section 2.

2. TYPICAL SITUATIONS

2.1 Confidentiality v Public Duty to Reveal

The major instance of this would relate to the placing of unwholesome food on the market. Refer to Professional Conduct Guideline No. 1 (Wholesomeness of Food), especially Section 4, which states that members should "take legitimate steps through the proper channels" and each member is expected to do this to the full extent of his or her scope for taking decisions, but members are not accountable or open to criticism for deficiencies or actions beyond their power to influence.

In the event of all the "legitimate steps through the proper channels" being taken, to no avail, and the failure arising from a genuine difference of opinion re the wholesomeness of the food, a last resort before considering disclosure may be to invite the manufacturer to seek an independent expert opinion.

"Disclosure" may imply:-

(a) a responsive action (e.g. in answer to a direct question in a court of law or public enquirywhere a member cannot claim confidentiality grounds for remaining silent, as on occasion may a priest or doctor)

(b) an initiatory action-e.g. in the case of a real public hazard where (a) would be too late. It must be remembered that this is a very grave step to take, would be serious and damaging for the manufacturer concerned, and have possible adverse consequences for the individual. General knowledge by an erring manufacturer that a professional may feel compelled by his or her professional code to publicly disclose wilful irresponsibility, should ensure that the situation does not occur, but in the rare exception, the decision must lie with the individual member.

Most would probably hold that a wilful infringement such as misdescription, failure to comply fully with a statutory compositional standard, or release of a product batch with substandard appearance, texture or flavour, would hardly justify so grave a step as initiatory disclosure in breach of confidence (particularly if it were an isolated instance). Conversely, the knowledge that, despite all legitimate efforts to prevent it, a knowing decision had been taken to release for sale a quantity of food constituting a recognised public health hazard (e.g. inadequately heatprocessed canned meat, or a product hazardously contaminated) would indicate a clear public duty of urgent initiatory disclosure.

Where two or more members of the profession at varying levels of seniority have been involved in the legitimate steps taken through the proper channels, it is generally desirable that any disclosure be made by the most senior professional.

For issues between the extreme cases outlined above, members should consider the following points:-

(a) the seriousness of the infringment, and especially whether the public would be only disadvantaged, or actually placed in danger (and to what extent);

(b) whether the facts are sufficiently well-authenticated and their interpretation sufficiently wellbased (see Professional Conduct Guideline No. 1 "Wholesomeness of Food" Section 1.3);

(c) if hazard is thought to be involved, whether it is hazard that is generally recognised as such by the general body of professional experts in the field, or whether it is merely a personal view (however strongly and sincerely held). Attention is drawn to Section 1.3 of Professional Conduct Guideline No. 1, which warns that care must be taken to ensure that facts are not being selected, consciously or unconsciously,. to support a predetermined conclusion, or to disguise a hazard, or to warn of a hazard the reality of which has not been established.

Clause (ix) of the Code of Professional Conduct requires each member to "support fellow members who may find themselves in difficulties on account of their adherence to this Code and the Institute in its efforts to protect them". If the Professional Conduct Committee is fully satisfied that the member has acted responsibly in accordance with the Code in a situation where the facts warranted such action, it would advise Council that the Institute should do all in its power to support and protect the member. Clearly, it is both undesirable and impracticable to hypothesise in advance what forms of action might be appropriate in a particular case, but in any event it must be stressed that the Institute itself cannot accept legal liability for actions by individuals.

2.2 Responsibility to an Employer v Responsibility to a Subordinate

Clause (viii) of the Code of Professional Conduct requires each member to "recognise his or her responsibility for the professional guidance of subordinates under his or her immediate control".

A separate Professional Conduct Guideline relates generally to responsibility towards subordinates. Clause (viii) quoted above, clearly implies a general responsibility to assist subordinates in their legitimate efforts to progress favourably in their chosen career, subject to merit and ability, and it is hoped that members would defend subordinates against criticism of their professional ability if the criticism is unjust, particularly if it comes from non-technical people.

Circumstances may arise, for instance, in the event of redundancy, in which a member is asked to take a decision or condone an action which would adversely affect a subordinate's career or progress which he or she considers undeserved. It must be realised that such a decision may sometimes be necessary to safeguard the interests of the organisation. In such circumstances the member should:

(a) seek to satisfy himself or herself that the prospective action is on reasonable and not capricious grounds;

(b) enquire whether the desired objective is achievable by alternative and less harmful action, and if so, whether the alternative course can be feasibly adopted;

(c) seek to ensure that any action is implemented in the fairest and most humane manner possible;

(d) advise the subordinate on ways of minimising any adverse consequences and of optimising future career prospects.

2.3 Promotion of Employer's Interest v Scientific Objectivity

It is clearly the duty of members to do all that they properly can to further the legitimate interests of their employers or clients. Members may sometimes find themselves under pressure to do so to an extent or in ways which would compromise their professional integrity. Alternatively, enthusiasm may inadvertently carry the individual to a point where scientific objectivity suffers. The latter problem may arise particularly where the member is working in the fields of marketing, advertising or sales, or in providing technical service support to the sales function, most frequently in connection with some aspect of the wholesomeness of food. Full guidance on this was given in Section 5 of Professional Conduct Guideline No. 1, to which reference should be made. Similar principles will apply to other manifestations of this conflict.

2.4 Responsibility (of a consultant) to one client v Responsibility to another

Conflict could arise if a consultant were simultaneously to represent both sides of a transaction (e.g. buyer and seller). While it is obvious that a consultant should decline to do so, except at the specific request of both parties and under carefully predefined conditions, this is an oversimplification. A transaction may be embarked upon, initially without the knowledge of the consultant, between two firms which retain his or her services, and it is possible for partial involvement to occur without its nature becoming initially apparent. If involvement of this kind can be foreseen, or as soon as it becomes apparent, the consultant should draw the situation to the attention of both parties.

Another problem area is that of two client companies which are competitors in the same area of the food industry. Particularly where a consultant specialises in a narrow sector of the food industry, it is likely (especially due to mergers, takeovers, etc) that among a consultant's established clients there will be some in direct competition with each other in some respect. Again, it is an easy oversimplification to state that knowledge gained while doing work for one client should not be disclosed to another client; but any knowledge becomes part of the consultant's mental equipment in thinking about and solving technical problems. There is no way of evading this difficulty, and probably the best safeguard is for the consultant to be aware that the difficulty exists.

2.5 Responsibility to an Organisation v Responsibility to the Profession

This potential conflict may manifest itself in connection with any organisation, whether it be an industrial company, a research establishment, or an academic establishment. The policy of an individual organisation, aimed quite properly at safeguarding and furthering the interests of that organisation, may occasionally run contrary to the wider interests of the field of which it is a part; and in the present context, may run counter to the interests of the profession as a whole. This can present a dilemma for the member employed in the organisation concerned, and particularly for a senior member who may be expected to act as a spokesman and advocate for the organisation (or a federal body of such organisations) in official quarters.

It would be unreasonable to expect an organisation's policy to be framed in disregard of its own interests. Members, and particularly senior members in that organisation should seek to ensure that in the evolution and framing of its policy full account is taken of the professional view and interests, as reflected in the policies of the Institute, both general and specific (i.e. technical or educational as the case may be). Care is taken that the policies of the Institute do reflect the professional approach and outlook, partly by the machinery of policy making and partly by the varying backgrounds of its many members.

If, nevertheless, the situation arises where a member is required by his or her employing organisation to advocate or engage in actions on its behalf, which run counter to the policies of his or her profession, the member should carefully consider whether the measures or policies in question represent a proper, honest, and legitimate view for the employing organisation to take. If so, the member should carry out the required task conscientiously and as effectively as possible, but in such a way that, without thereby preventing effectiveness, any implication that this represents the view of the profession, or of the individual professional, is avoided (e.g. by the use of phrases which emphasise the organisation and not the individual). If, on the other hand, the member concludes that the action required of him or her is dishonest, fallaciously-based or generally contrary to professional integrity, the member should draw this to the attention of superiors through proper channels. The principles outlined in Section 5 of Professional Conduct Guideline No. 1 (there related to debate concerning wholesomeness of food) apply with equal force to this more general area.

2.6 Possible Conflict of Loyalties to various Societies, Institutes, etc.

In their individual professional capacities or some aspect of them, food scientists or technologists may belong to professional and other institutes, "learned societies", bodies concerned with a limited sector of food science and technology, bodies with an incidental or overlapping interest in food science and technology, and other bodies, of a federal nature, on which food scientists or technologists may serve as representatives of their employing organisations (e.g. trade associations), or as representatives of individual societies or institutes. Generally, the interests of such bodies coincide, overlap, are complementary, or at least do not clash. Where the respective interests of two or more such bodies do differ, however, possible conflict of loyalties may arise for a member active in the bodies concerned, and particularly for one serving on the respective committees.

The problem of confidentiality of information in this context has already been discussed in Section 6.4 of Professional Conduct Guideline No. 3, "Confidentiality of Information". As regards advocacy of policy and contribution to decision-making in this context, the following principles should be noted:

(a) when acting in a representational role (e.g. representing a body in a federal organisation or a firm in a trade association) a member should advocate the views of the body/firm represented and no other, and support proposals compatible therewith (subject to the considerations outlined in Section 2.5 above);

(b) when participating in the deliberations of an institute or society, a member should have first and foremost in mind the interests of that body, and should refrain from seeking to promote there the interests of any other body. Members should, however, seek to foster the maximum amount of goodwill and practical collaboration among organisations.

2.7 Responsibility to Colleagues in a Trade Union v Responsibility to the Profession

Professionals who support trade unionism, either considering that there is no incompatibility with professional ethics, or that trade union causes may deserve a greater loyalty, may occasionally encounter very great difficulty in deciding In particular circumstances where their greater loyalty and responsibility lie.

Individuals may not always have a completely free choice of which Union they join; and even If they join a wholly professional union, instances have arisen where a professional union has threatened the area of public interest for which it is professionally responsible, as a means of achieving its own objectives and/or gain sectional advantage. If this happens, members should consider the public interest as well as their own.

NDC/HGW/SEC 76-77

Ref. No. 1006