Anna has worked at Syarikat Kimia Mutiara as a process engineer for nearly eight years, and she has signed a secrecy agreement with the firm that prohibits his divulging information that the company considers proprietary. Syarikat Kimia Mutiara solicits competitive quotations on the design and construction of a chemical plant facility. All the bidders are required to furnish as a part of their proposals the processing scheme planned to produce the specified final products. The process generally is one which has been in common use for several years. All of the quotations are generally similar in most respects from the standpoint of technology. Contractor X submits the highest –price quotation. He includes in his proposals, however, a unique approach to a portion of the processing scheme. Yields are indicated to be better than current practice, and quality improvement is apparent. A quick laboratory check indicates that the innovation is practicable. Syarikat Kimia Mutiara then calls on Contractor Z, the low bidder, and asks him to evaluate and bid on an alternate scheme conceived by Contractor X. Contractor Z is not told the source of alternative design. Syarikat Kimia Mutiara makes no representation in his quotation request that replies will be held in confidence. Discussion Questions
1. Present and defend your view as to whether the actions of Syarikat Kimia Mutiara are morally permissible, obligatory or admirable? 2. Assume that Anna’s boyfriend is an employee at Contractor X Company. May Anna ethically provide the information to her boyfriend’s company regarding the actions of her employer? Was her s a case of legitimate whistle-blowing? 3. What specific obligations, ideals, and effects should have been considered before either one become a whistle-blower?