reasonable effort to protect the environment from adverse effects resulting from the performance of their work.”
“Perform their work honestly, objectively, and in accordance with currently accepted professional standards.”
“Respect the privacy of confidential personal, professional, and business information.”
“Participate only in projects or situations that do not place them in personal or business conflicts of interest. This provision is waived if the principal parties to the ROH's or ROHT's conflict of interest have given their informed, specifically expressed, consent.”
“Conduct themselves with integrity.”
“Maintain a working knowledge of current developments in the profession and a detailed knowledge of areas in which they claim expertise.”
“Promote activities that advance and disseminate occupational hygiene knowledge.”
“Cooperate with the directors of the Canadian Registration Board of Occupational Hygienists in administering this Code of Ethics.”15
6.6 International Code of Ethics for Occupational Health Professionals
The International Commission on Occupational Health issues the International Code of Ethics for Occupational Health Professionals, which are revised periodically and are far more comprehensive and prescriptive than those of ABIH or AIHA and ACGIH. This code emphasizes worker involvement in health and safety and includes a focus on factors that may affect worker health and safety beyond the chemical, physical, and biological hazards in their immediate vicinity (e.g. previous injuries, age, gender, ethnicity, and communication barriers). The ICOH Code is not enforceable but is intended to apply to the broad swath of professions (e.g. physicians, nurses, industrial hygienists, toxicologists, social insurance, and health educators) in the field of occupational health.16
7 CASE STUDIES: IH ETHICAL DILEMMAS
In this section, several case studies are presented relating a variety of scenarios that a health and safety professional could encounter during their work. Names, locations, and circumstances were changed to maintain the confidentiality of the contributor.
The intent is for the reader to gain experience using standard professional codes of conduct and associated reference sources (e.g. ABIH Industrial Hygiene Code of Ethics, Joint Industrial Hygiene Associations Member Ethical Principles, and Industrial Hygiene Canons of Ethical Conduct) as guidance documents in analyzing each case study. Before reviewing the analysis presented with each case, see if you can use the guidance documents to perform your own evaluation and develop a perspective. You may agree or disagree with the analysis presented, but the basis for your view point should be drawn from one or more of the guidance documents listed above.
7.1 Case 1 – The Cannabis Conundrum
7.1.1 Background
Julie is a consulting certified industrial hygienist based in Colorado. She has been involved in the cannabis industry from nearly its inception performing several worker exposure studies and developing guidelines to minimize employee exposure to cannabis and the pesticides used in production. As a result of her groundbreaking work within the industry, Julie has a national reputation and is a sought‐after speaker and consultant.
While Julie is a sole practitioner, her two largest clients, DEF Environmental and HIJ Consultants are national consulting firms. While cannabis is a nascent industry, both firms hope to become the dominant player as it relates to environmental health and safety. Given Julie's extensive expertise, both firms see a strategic advantage having her included on every proposal they submit for work in the industry. So far, working for both of these firms has not presented a problem as each firm has pursued separate opportunities – until now.
The National Cannabis Industry Association issued a request for proposal (RFP) to review all relevant toxicological and exposure assessment literature, conduct nationwide exposure assessments characterizing each similar exposure group, and provide a variety of exposure control recommendations. DEF and HIJ plan to pursue this RFP as each estimates the revenue for this work will be in the $250 000 range. More importantly, the winning firm will be established as the clear industry leader. Julie is contacted by DEF and HIJ to be part of their respective pursuit teams. Given her industry reputation, Julie's association would provide a competitive advantage to the team she selects.
The RFP requires that in addition to resumes, the bidders must make an in‐person presentation. Julie is a key team member and would be expected to participate in the in‐person meeting.
7.1.2 Issue
Julie is faced with a potential conflict of interest in deciding which client she should team with in pursuing the National Cannabis Industry Association RFP. She does not want to alienate either client but is concerned about losing the one who she does not choose.
7.1.3 Analysis
The ABIH Industrial Hygiene Code of Ethics states that a CIH must “Assure that a conflict of interest does not compromise the legitimate interests of a client, employer, employee or the public and does not interfere with professional judgements (I)(A)(7).” The Joint Industrial Hygiene Association Member Ethical Principles require the industrial hygienist to, “Disclose to clients or employers significant circumstances that could be construed as a conflict of interest, or appearance of impropriety (II)(B)(1).” The fourth canon of the Industrial Hygiene Canons of Ethical Conduct states, “Industrial Hygienists shall avoid circumstances where a compromise of professional judgement or conflict of interest may arise.” The Canon's interpretive guidelines also offer that an industrial hygienist should disclose known or potential conflicts of interest to parties that may be affected.
Based on the guidance in the preceding paragraph, Julie could select between DEF or HIJ to resolve the potential conflict of interest and hope she can retain the non‐selected client. Alternatively, Julie could let both clients know that she has been approached by the other bidder and propose she be made a member of both teams. She would offer her services to both clients at the same rate and terms effectively removing her as a factor in which team is awarded the work.
7.2 Case 2 – To Tell, or Not to Tell: Is There Even a Question?
7.2.1 Background
Robert is a CIH and the EHS Manager at a large Midwest refinery for XYZ Energy. The unit operators at the facility are represented by a union and the contract is about to expire. The situation is tense – employees have demanded expensive contract modifications including an eight percent raise and an employer matching funds program regarding pension and management shows no signs of agreeing.
As part of the negotiations, the chair of the refinery health and safety committee, a unit operator, reviews all the OSHA regulations identifying those violations that are applicable in his opinion. He compiles a dossier containing more than 100 suspect violations and submits the document as a complaint to OSHA anonymously.
A team of OSHA inspectors and local police show up at the refinery with a warrant based on information in the dossier. Robert is called immediately and meets with the OSHA team. They inform him that they intend to inspect all the locations in the refinery based on the complaint, but may include other areas as granted by the warrant using OSHA's General Duty Clause. Robert spends the next week accompanying the OSHA inspectors around the site. There is one area of the refinery where a petroleum‐based product is loaded into large transport trucks using a top‐fill technique. Robert has monitored the operator for benzene exposure in this area. This procedure happens several times each week and each time the five parts per million short‐term exposure limit (STEL)