Both Susan and Daniel work for the management company. If Daniel does a report, it had to have been ordered by someone. I'm thinking his boss, Susan, gave him the assignment, and that the assignment came directly from Susan or through Susan from the managment company's CEO.
As for "publishing," it depends on what you mean by that. If he was directed to do a report, then he should give that report to Susan. What she, or those above her, do with it is out of his hands. There would be no call to independently "publish" - that is, write for professional or commercial media or "leak" the report - unless there were clear-cut evidence that deliberate malpractice was ongoing, or standards were so lowered that danger exists.
Of course, as you know, Lisa, the problem is what is clear-cut? And is danger of malpractice any less troubling if not deliberate?
On a wider scale, we find fault with the ones who did not stand up against Hitler's policies and orders. And yet, it boils down just like here.
When does a person blow the whistle? Another question beyond whether whistle blowing helps or harms the situation and the public, is does the whistle blowing help or harm the whistle blower?
And an immediate answer may not be a long-term answer.
An investigative reporter - we expect to blow the whistle. But a person who works for a company - the law may protect the person, and we may even praise the person for the courage and for caring, but often there is a distrust for the person later - not only from the company that he blew the whistle on, but with that whole industry, and perhaps with the public, as well.
Isn't talking about ethics fun?