I

Marvin Johnson is Environmental Engineer for Wolfog Manufacturing, one ofseveral local plants whose water discharges flow into a lake in a flourishing tourist area. Included in Marvin's responsibilities is the monitoring of water and air discharges at his plant and the periodic preparation of reports to be submitted to the Department of NaturalResources.

Marvin has just prepared a report that indicates that the level of pollution in the plant's water discharges slightly exceeds the legal limitations. However, there is little reason to believe that this excessive amount poses any danger to people in the area; at worst, it will endanger a small number of fish. On the other hand, solving the problem will cost the plant more than $200,000.

Marvin's supervisor, Plant Manager Edgar Owens, says the excess should be regarded as a mere "technicality," and he asks Marvin to "adjust" the data so that the plant appears to be in compliance. He explains: "We can't afford the $200,000. It might even cost a few jobs. No doubt it would set us behind our competitors. Besides the bad publicity we'd get, it might scare offsome of tourist industry, making it worse for everybody." How do you think Marvin should respond to Edgar's request?

II

No doubt many people in the area besides Marvin Johnson and Edgar Owens have an important stake in how Marvin responds to Edgar's request. How many kinds of people who have a stake in this can you think of? [E.g., employees at Wolfog.]

III

Deborah Randle works for the Department of NaturalResources. One of her major responsibilities is to evaluate periodic water and air discharge reports from local industry to see if they are in compliance with antipollution requirements. Do you think Deborah would agree with the Plant Manager's idea that the excess should be regarded as a "mere technicality"?

IV

Consider the situation as local parents of children who swim in the lake. Would they agree that the excess is a "mere technicality"?

V

A basic ethical principle is "Whatever is right (or wrong) for one person is right (or wrong) for any relevantly similar persons in a relevantly similar situation." This is called the principle of universalizability. Suppose there are several plants in the area whose emissions are, like Wolfog Manufacturing's, slightly in excess of the legal limitations. According to the principle of universalizability, if it is right for Marvin Johnson to submit an inaccurate report, it is right for all the other environmental engineers to do likewise (and for their plant managers to ask them
to do so). What if all the plants submitted reports like the one Edgar Owens wants Marvin Johnson to submit?

VI

Now that you have looked at the situation at Wolfog from a number of different perspectives, has your view of what Marvin Johnson do changed from your first answer? [This case is an adaptation of "Cover-up Temptation," one ofseveralshort scenarios in Roger Ricklefs,
"Executives Apply Stiffer Standards Than Public to Ethical Dilemmas," The Wall Street Journal, November 3, 1983.]

Joseph Ellin

I

This case involves a violation of environmentalregulations which may be more 'technical' than real. Wolfog Co is faced with $200,000 unnecessary expenses to prevent small excess omissions which are not believed to be harmful to anyone but a few fish. The obvious course here is for Wolfog to apply to the DNR for a variance. Their lawyers can try to convince the DNR that the slight excess poses little danger. If they don't get the variance, they'll have to conform, or go to court; though all this will probably cost Wolfog more than the cost of compliance.

However there's nothing to be done on an individual basis. Manager Edgar Owens should not expect engineer marvin to 'adjust' the data and Marvin shouldn't do it. Edgar's reasoning is self-serving:if he's worried about image and tourism he should comply with the regulations. It may well be true that if Wolfog has to spend the $200,000 which they can't afford, they're in trouble, but the answer, if there is an answer, is not to fake data.

II

This might be one of those cases in which most people are better off if the law is violated rather than obeyed. Such situations are probably more common than realized. It's not the discharge itself which does any harm, but the fact that it's not in conformity to the regulations, since this creates the image problem and scares away the tourists. This obviously makes an excellent case for loosening the regulations:regulations should not be more onerous than necessary to achieve their purpose. The more people who have a stake in economic development, the more likely is this case to be heard by the authorities.

III

Whether Deborah, the DNR water quality official, would agree that the violation is a 'mere technicality,' depends on Deborah. We don't know enough about her; ifshe's a radical environmentalist, she thinks zero dead fish is the only tolerable condition, and no cost is too great to achieve it. She also may think there is no such thing as a technical violation: a violation is a violation,may be her enforcement motto. One might take the view that ifshe thinks this, she shouldn't be in her position, but perhaps her boss thinks so too. Perhaps this is the motto of the entire DNR, which if it is shows something about the irrationality we've gotten ourselves into.

IV

Would the parents agree that the violation is merely technical? Probably not; the local parents have been whipped up by the environmentalists and the media to think that any drop of anything is dangerous. They want jobs, economic progress, low taxes, low prices, and a pristine environment as well, (who doesn't?) and they are not wiling or able to understand the issues involved. And they vote.

V

So given this hypothetical gloomy situation, is the over-all best solution that Marvin should just fake the data? One might make such an argument from a narrow act utilitarian point of view, but for allsorts of reasons including long-range utility it isn't right for anyone to submit a fake report, so the question whether everyone might do so is purely hypothetical. Another question would be, if it's right to grant a variance to Wolfog, is it right to grant a variance to every plant? And the answer would be yes, which is not an argument not to grant the variance
to Wolfog, unless there is a comparable compelling reason at the other industries (for example, it might not cost everybody $200,000 to clean up). If there is, then the DNR is within its rights in denying the variance. If all the factories together produce a total discharge that is dangerous, the situation changes by that fact. But if there are no other plants in Wolfog's situation, then the so-called principle of universalizability should not be used as an excuse to impose hardships on one firm without any compensating gain for anyone except the few fish.

VI

Marvin shouldn't fake the data. The rest is up to the people at Wolfog.