Company B Engineers Employer-Ordered Execution of Disputed Design
S · State
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/160#Company_B_Engineers_Employer-Ordered_Execution_of_Disputed_Design
Properties
Instance of
Employer-OrderedExecutionofDisputedSafety-DeficientDesignState
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#Employer-OrderedExecutionofDisputedSafety-DeficientDesignState
Active period
From employer's instruction to proceed with production through ethics board's determination that refusal is mandatory
Affected parties
Company A
Company B (employer)
Engineers of Company B
Public
Confidence
0.92
Importance
high
Subject
Company B engineers under direct employer instruction to proceed with production of machinery designed by Company A, which Company B engineers believe is unsafe, after inter-firm escalation has been rejected
Terminated by
Ethics board determination that Company B engineers must refuse and withdraw; engineers' compliance with that obligation
Triggering event
Employer's instruction to Company B engineers to proceed with production despite their documented safety concerns and Company A's rejection of those concerns
Urgency level
high
Source Evidence
Source text
the further and more difficult question, however, is whether the engineers of Company 'B' are required or ethically permitted to refuse to proceed with the production on the basis of plans and specifications which they continue to regard as unsafe
Text references
So long as the engineers of Company 'B' hold to their opinion that the machinery as originally designed and specified would be unsafe to the public they should refuse to participate in its processing or production under the mandate of Section 2(c)
the further and more difficult question, however, is whether the engineers of Company 'B' are required or ethically permitted to refuse to proceed with the production on the basis of plans and specifications which they continue to regard as unsafe
TTL
@prefix case160: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/160#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@prefix prov: <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
case160:Company_B_Engineers_Employer-Ordered_Execution_of_Disputed_Design a proeth:Employer-OrderedExecutionofDisputedSafety-DeficientDesignState,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Company B Engineers Employer-Ordered Execution of Disputed Design" ;
proeth:activeperiod "From employer's instruction to proceed with production through ethics board's determination that refusal is mandatory" ;
proeth:affectedparties "Company A",
"Company B (employer)",
"Engineers of Company B",
"Public" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "State" ;
proeth:confidence "0.92" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "160" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-02T14:27:29.252806+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "160" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-02T14:27:29.252806+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:sourcetext "the further and more difficult question, however, is whether the engineers of Company 'B' are required or ethically permitted to refuse to proceed with the production on the basis of plans and specifications which they continue to regard as unsafe" ;
proeth:stateclass "Employer-Ordered Execution of Disputed Safety-Deficient Design State" ;
proeth:subject "Company B engineers under direct employer instruction to proceed with production of machinery designed by Company A, which Company B engineers believe is unsafe, after inter-firm escalation has been rejected" ;
proeth:terminatedby "Ethics board determination that Company B engineers must refuse and withdraw; engineers' compliance with that obligation" ;
proeth:textreferences "So long as the engineers of Company 'B' hold to their opinion that the machinery as originally designed and specified would be unsafe to the public they should refuse to participate in its processing or production under the mandate of Section 2(c)",
"the further and more difficult question, however, is whether the engineers of Company 'B' are required or ethically permitted to refuse to proceed with the production on the basis of plans and specifications which they continue to regard as unsafe" ;
proeth:triggeringevent "Employer's instruction to Company B engineers to proceed with production despite their documented safety concerns and Company A's rejection of those concerns" ;
proeth:urgencylevel "high" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 160 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-02T14:53:00.986710"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 160 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
160
Discovered in pass
1
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-02T14:27:29.252806+00:00
First case
160
Generated
2026-03-02T14:27:29.252806+00:00
Attributed to
Case 160 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-02T14:53:00.986710
Generated by
ProEthica Case 160 Extraction