1

French Engineers
A case study for use in teaching in Engineering Ethics
Abstract
This scenario examines the problem of what to do when encountering unacceptable behaviour (drinking
during work hours) while working abroad.
Teaching Format
1 hour session, small group discussions
Practicalities
This case study is aimed at students who have not studied ethics before.
Contents
Page 2
Page 3
Page 6

Scenario and Questions

Tutor Notes
Follow up, Further Reading & Reference Details

Relevant Ethical Concepts & Issues

Duty
Moral relativism
Duty to Obey the Law
Professional Duty
Whistleblowing

More information about these concepts and issues can be found in the Glossary for Engineers document

Partners in producing this resource

French Engineers

Dr Peter Gilmore works for BG Chemicals Ltd and is based at their plant in Leicestershire. He is sent to France for 6
months to liaise with Monsieur Loreau at the Douai site concerning a project to develop and produce marine
lubricants. Peter rents a flat in a nearby village and is given a desk in Mr Loreaus office so that he can work
comfortably. He is made to feel very welcome, with everyone being forgiving of his weak grasp of the beloved French
language. It takes a couple of weeks to settle in properly but soon Peter is chatting in French that, whilst not fluent, is
certainly understood by his colleagues. He is working closely with Mr Loreau and the project is progressing well, with
completion due well within schedule.
Feeling more at home, Peter has started to explore around the office during his lunchtime, and on one of his walks
finds a charming little bistro, tucked away down a side street. He decides to try their menu du jour and is ushered to a
table near the back. He glances over to the table next to his and sees faces that he recognises- he does not know their
names to but he has seen the three men working on the factory floor. They look to be halfway through their lunch and
there are already two empty bottles of wine on their table. As Peter enjoys his meal he observes that the Frenchmen
polish off another bottle of wine before they leave the bistro and return to work.
Concerned, Peter approaches Mr Loreau when he returns to the office and tells him of the large amount of alcohol that
he has seen some of the workers consuming before returning to deal with poisonous and corrosive chemicals as well as
heavy machinery. Mr Loreau shrugs, and says that this is quite normal. The French tend to enjoy a leisurely lunch with
free-flowing wine but this is always accompanied by a hearty meal. Plus, the men do this every day so alcohol does not
affect them as it would someone less used to drinking regularly. Mr Loreau tells Peter that he is not to worry; wine is
even served at the factory canteen for those that wish to stay in for their lunch.

Questions
(i)

Why is Dr Gilmore concerned? Are his concerns justified? Why/ why not?

(ii)

Was Dr Gilmore right to take his concerns to Mr Loreau?

(iii) What should Dr Gilmore do next? Why?

(iv)

Would your answer be the same if the incident had occurred in the UK? Why?

(v)

Read the scenario and then discuss the above questions in your group. Each group will be asked to report their
answers back to the class so it might be useful to appoint a scribe to note down what is discussed.

2222

Tutor Notes

The tutor takes a facilitator role directing questions where necessary to generate discussion, allowing students to
voice their own opinions and encouraging them to justify their answers. To begin the class, give each student a
handout and give them time to read the text. (5 minutes or less for this section)
Next split the students into groups of 4-6 and get them to discuss the questions. (These are ideal numbers but larger
groups are workable. There should really be no more than 5 groups in a class and larger group sizes are preferable to
greater numbers of groups so expand group sizes if necessary), Encourage students to move chairs or themselves
around where possible so that group members can hear each other and so that the different groups are sufficiently
distinct from one another. It is often useful to split up groups of friends and put students with people with whom they
would not normally converse. While this might make the students awkward to begin with, it helps them to focus on the
task and usually ensures that a broad range of opinions are represented within each group making the discussion
livelier and more involved. Tell each group that are going to have to report back the class; perhaps each group could
nominate a scribe at this point to jot down the points each member of the group makes. Get the groups to discuss
the questions given after the scenario. Explain that the questions are phrased so that justification for answers must be
given and that you will be expecting to hear why groups thought what they did as well as what they thought when they
report back. (15 minutes)
Bring the students back into a large group, moving chairs where necessary, and ask one member of each group to
report back to the class as a whole. Give each spokesperson a few minutes in which to give their report, and move on
to the next group when they are finished. There should be minimal discussion at this point- if any students interrupt
tell them to record their thoughts on paper for the time being, and that there will be time to discuss this after each
group has presented. Record what each group says on a board or flipchart so that you can refer back to this in the
discussion and conclusion. (15 minutes for the reports).
After the reports have been delivered bring the group together for a group discussion. Begin by focusing on a question
that groups gave different answers to and ask them to comment further- why they gave that answer, why they think
that the other groups are wrong etc. Discussion should flow naturally but the questions provide a basic structure if
students need prompting. Below are the main points that should get covered in relation to each question, and ways in
which students can be challenged to explain and defend their answers (15 minutes):

(i)

Why is Dr Gilmore concerned? Are his concerns justified? Why/ why not?

Dr Gilmore is concerned because he thinks that safety is being compromised by the workers who have been drinking
too much. These concerns are justified- he has good reason to believe that drinking alcohol could lead to impairment
of judgement and this could cause accidents, particularly where dangerous substances or machinery are involved.
The aim of this question is to get students to recognise that something that we would usually regard as morally wrong has
happened in this case.

(ii)

Was Dr Gilmore right to take his concerns to Mr Loreau?

Dr Gilmore was justified as long as he was sure about the accusations he was making- that he had identified the men
correctly and that he did see them drinking a large amount of alcohol (And made certain that they were indeed
returning to work for the afternoon, rather than perhaps going home after having worked a half day). He also acted
professionally by going to his immediate superior, Mr Loreau, rather than taking more drastic and inappropriate
action- going over his head, or leaking details to the press, for example.
The aim of this question is to get students to recognise that Dr Gilmore was justified in his actions. If the students agree that
something wrong has occurred and that Dr Gilmore was correct in taking his concerns to Mr Loreau then the next question
becomes difficult to answer.

3333

4
(iii) What should Dr Gilmore do next? Why?
This is where the details of the ethical dilemma become apparent: If Dr Gilmore does nothing then he is arguably failing
to do his duty to keep safety paramount. On the other hand, if he takes the issue further he is going over Mr Loreaus
head and ignoring the fact that drinking is not prohibited at the plant- this is arguably disrespectful and interfering.
Because of this dilemma there will most likely be a split between students at this point with the most popular answers
given below:
Dr Gilmore should do nothing because he has done his duty already/ it is none of his business: This will probably
be the most common response. Even if students agree that there is something wrong occurring, they can argue that it
is not Dr Gilmores problem to sort out. He is not the member of staff in charge, and he has informed a senior
colleague and hence placed the responsibility (if there is one) with Mr Loreau. Also, he does not work at the plant
(although he works for the company) and he is a visitor in a foreign country and so should respect the laws and
customs while he is there. If students go down this route then get them to justify their answer, particularly if they have
concluded from the first two questions that something wrong has occurred and that Dr Gilmore was right to have gone
to Mr Loreau - Why does Dr Gilmore not have a duty to do something more? If his duty to raise the issue in the first
place is based on the fact that there is a threat to safety, then the duty still remains as long as the threat to safety
remains. The fact that Mr Loreau is not taking the concern seriously places more of a duty on Dr Gilmore to do
something.
Dr Gilmore should do nothing because there is nothing to worry about: This answer is based on the thought that
drinking alcohol is not prohibited at the plant and so the workers have broken no rules. Again, challenge those
students who take this route if they have already agreed that drinking at work is wrong. The absence of a rule
prohibiting the drinking of alcohol does not make the practice morally permissible. (Compare: there is no law against
adultery in this country but that seems irrelevant to whether or not we regard it as morally wrong)
Dr Gilmore should take his concerns further: This may be the least popular response as it means arguing that Dr
Gilmore should go over Mr Loreaus head and take the issue to a higher authority. Drinking alcohol is not banned in
the plant, Dr Gilmore is therefore complaining about something about which the French are not concerned (if they had
an objection to drinking in the workplace the presumably there would be rules prohibiting it). As an outsider to the
plant and to the country one could question his right to impose his views on others.

(iv)

Would your answer be the same if the incident had occurred in the UK? Why?

This is where students who have previously argued that Dr Gilmore should do nothing further may change their minds
and argue that if the incident had occurred in the UK then it would have been Dr Gilmores duty to take the matter
further. This may be for a number of reasons:

Drinking at work is normally prohibited in the UK and so people have a duty to report breaches of rules. No
rules were broken in France so there is no duty to report the workers behaviour.

Dr Gilmore is a UK engineer and so he has a duty to ensure safe working practices in the UK only. Monsieur
Loreau was the person responsible at the Douai plant.

Different standards apply in different countries- daytime sociable drinking is acceptable behaviour in France but
unacceptable in the UK.

The first two reasons have been covered in the previous question and so students views can be challenged using the
strategies given above. The thought that different standards legitimately apply in different countries can be challenged
in various ways. (This view is known as moral relativism. If you want to learn more about this there are references in the
Further Reading section which you can follow up). The main challenge to this reason is that the existence of different
standards does not always mean that different kinds of behaviour are right and wrong. That is, just because a practice
is socially acceptable or sanctioned in another culture does not mean that this practice is morally defensible. Ask the
students to consider the extreme example of Nazi Germany. A society seemed to sanction the most deplorable of

Drinking at work is not strictly against the law in either the UK or France unless the job involves driving (trains, trams, cars etc.) However, health
& safety laws in both countries make it the duty of any employer to look after the health & safety of their staff. Industries in the UK are unlikely
to tolerate drinking amongst members of staff.

4444

5
behaviour which we have no hesitation in morally condemning. Although drinking at work is obviously not in the same
league as genocide, the principle behind the two cases is the same. If students wish to claim that different standards
apply in different cultures then practices such as genocide become difficult to condemn- who are we as outsiders to
impose our values on those of different cultures?
After the students have been given an opportunity to discuss their reports you should conclude the lesson. Below is
a summary that you may want to use to round the lesson up. You will be also be able to indicate how the class
discussion picked up on many of the key features of this case by summarising the points that you noted from the
group reports.
This case study highlights the difficulty of coming to decisions concerning the right thing to do. This is because there
are a number of competing considerations which need to be taken into account and it is difficult to weigh up these
considerations and decide which ones take precedence. There are three main considerations which are relevant in this
case:

Professional duty: Dr Gilmore has a duty as an engineer to uphold certain standards, including high safety
standards.

Duty to preserve safety: Even if Dr Gilmore were not an engineer, we might want to argue that as human
beings we should seek to prevent harm from occurring wherever possible.

Respect for others (especially other cultures): People ought to respect the authority of others. Dr Gilmore
should respect the authority of Mr Loreau over his staff, and the authority of the plant management to run the
plant as they see fit.

This case study also touches on the topic of whistleblowing. This is the deliberate exposure of wrongdoing, usually in
a corporate setting and especially in those cases where harm is likely to occur if the wrongdoing is not exposed.
Whether or not whistleblowing is justified depends upon how severe the harm is and how likely it is to occur. It is also
dependent upon whether or not the company in question has an obligation to avoid such harms. In this case the harm
could be severe - workers could injure themselves and others if their motor skills and judgement are impaired by
alcohol. The likelihood of this harm occurring is also quite high given that the workers are on the shop floor and in
contact with dangerous chemicals and heavy machinery. It also could be argued that the company are failing in their
duty to protect the safety of their workers- this means that the case in favour of whistleblowing is a very good one.
However, the issue is complicated by the fact that the incident occurs abroad, outside of Dr Gilmores sphere of
influence and whilst the whistleblowing may be justified, there is the competing consideration of respect which makes
this case less than straightforward.

5555

Follow up

This case study can be taught in conjunction with the seminar exercises in Session 4 of the Introduction to Ethical
Thinking teaching package.

Further Reading

Moral relativism

Benn, P. (1998) Ethics, London: Routledge. Chapter 1.

Sommers, C. & Sommers, F. (2001) Vice and Virtue in Everyday Life, Wadsworth. Chapter 3.

Whistleblowing/ Professional duty

Martin, M. & Schinzinger, R. (2005) Ethics in Engineering, 4th edition, New York: McGraw-Hill. Chapter 6

Whitbeck, C. (1998) Ethics in Engineering Practice & Research, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapter
3.

Official Publications

Information about health in the workplace: http://www.worksmart.org.uk/health/

Author: Heather Fotheringham

Contact Details: h.a.fotheringham@leeds.ac.uk
Date: December 2007
How to Cite this Case Study: Fotheringham, H. (2007), French Engineers, Engineering Ethics Case Studies Database,
University of Leeds, viewed (date month, year)
http://www.engsc.ac.uk/downloads/scholarart/ethics/frenchengineers.pdf

6666