Premise A

1. Premise A Ethical decision-making should be used for technical decisions as well as business decisions, although the rules and items to consider will depend on whether it is a technical decision or a business decision.

2. Questions for Premise A • What distinguishes a technical decision from a business decision? • What are ethical considerations? • Would there be differences in ethical rules depending on whether the decision is a business or a technical one? • How do these ethical considerations get introduced into a technical decision?

3. Premise B Any given locale or local populace may have customs and practices which create an ethical climate that influences local decision-making; although, the Code of Ethics provided for ASME members does not vary based on location.

4. Premise B Scenarios • Gifts to Foreign Officials by US Engineer • Gifts to Foreign Officials by “Partner”

5. B-1: Gifts to Foreign Officials by US Engineer • Facts: • Richard Roe, PE, is CEO of US engineering firm that has done prior overseas assignments in countries A, B, C. • Negotiating contract in country D (not worked previously). • High-ranking official of government D advises Roe that personal gifts are made to awarding officials after contract award (established practice, legal in D). • Advises that “gifts” must not be stated in contract. • Advises that failure to make gifts will result in poor cooperation on first contract, no future work will be awarded. • Advises that other firms have adhered to local practice regarding such gifts.

6. B-1:Gifts to Foreign Officials by US Engineer • Question: Is it ethical for Roe to accept the contract award and make the gifts as described?

7. B-1: Gifts to Foreign Officials by US Engineer • Discussion: • Low value gifts, such as an occasional lunch, invitation to a project completion party, local golf outings, small tokens of appreciation are within the bounds of ethical gift-giving. • Gifts that influence decisions favorable to the giver, that influence independent professional judgment, or raises suspicion of favoritism as viewed by reasonable men, are out of bounds. (This is a work-around as one cannot read the state of mind of the donor or donee.) • These are difficult issues. In 1966, NSPE Board of Directors adopted a “When in Rome” clause to adapt to local laws, regulations and practices of the foreign country. • In 1968, NSPE BoD rescinded the “When in Rome” clause, as the profession should maintain a “pure” position on competitive bidding. • Need to avoid appearance of profit before service. • There is the choice of declining to be drawn into a seamy procedure for self-gain.

8. B-1:Gifts to Foreign Officials by US Engineer • Conclusion: It is unethical for Roe to accept the contract award and make the gifts as described. (Basis: NSPE BER Case 76-6)

9. B-2: Gifts to Foreign Officials by “Partner” • Facts: • Richard Roe, PE, is a consulting engineer who does work in the US and abroad. He has done prior private work in Country A. • Roe has worked in the past with Engineer B, a local engineer in Country A, on some of these private projects in Country A. • The government of Country A contacts Roe, and asks him to submit a bid on a major water project. • Acceptable custom in Country A is for consultants to give substantial gifts to public officials in connection with the awarding of public works contracts. • Roe recognizes this may be a violation of US law, although not technically a violation of Country A’s law. • Engineer B proposes to handle “business arrangements” if Roe is awarded the contract. • Roe would be involved in overall project management and all technical matters.

10. B-2: Gifts to Foreign Officials by “Partner” • Question: Would it be ethical for Roe to proceed with the project under these circumstances?

11. B-2: Gifts to Foreign Officials by “Partner” • Discussion: • With the increase in international engineering practice (NAFTA, GATS, etc.) engineers are being exposed to differing design selection methods. • Some selection methods, especially in the developing world and some cultures, are more deliberative, more subjective, and more personal than methods employed in the U.S. • Engineers must not take actions that bring dishonor to other engineers, equally true when practicing in the international arena. Engineers must be consistent in their ethical conduct regardless of where the engineer is rendering professional services. {See the NIEE video Incident at Morales.} • Engineers should carefully, delicately, and diplomatically sidestep the matter to remove any appearance of an ethical conflict. • Roe should be willing to consider an alternative arrangement under circumstances consistent with US law and engineering ethics, but the present arrangement would not be acceptable.

12. B-2: Gifts to Foreign Officials by “Partner” • Conclusion: It would it be unethical for Roe to proceed with the project under these circumstances. (Basis: NSPE BER Case 96-5)

13. Premise C Many employers have developed codes of conduct which their employees are required to acknowledge, although these typically direct the employee to follow all applicable laws, codes, and regulations, and thus absolve the company of any liability for an employee who violates these rules.

14. Premise D Engineering decision-making is often not a black & white situation.  The engineer must be able to review past decisions to determine if a reversal of course and corrective actions are required.

15. Questions for Premise D • If you knew you did not make the best possible choice in an engineering decision would you want to fix it? • What kind of decisions would you reconsider: safety issue? cost issue? performance issue? • Would you review every decision you made? • How often would you review decisions? • How far into the past should you be willing to look back? • How would you go about fixing any bad decisions?

16. Premise E An engineer should work within a given work system to ensure that technical decisions are made in an ethical manner, and should ensure that any concerns are brought to the appropriate levels of company management.  However, an engineer should be prepared to bring concerns to the appropriate outside agencies if required by a particular situation.

17. Premise E Scenarios • Information Damaging to Client’s Interest • Confidentiality Agreement • Duty to Report Safety Violations • Client Request for Secrecy

18. E-1: Information Damaging to Client’s Interest • Facts: • XYZ Corp. is advised by the State Pollution Control Authority that it has 60 days to apply for a permit to discharge waste into a receiving body of water, and is advised of the minimum standard to be met. • XYZ employs consultant Engineer Doe to submit a detailed report that the receiving body of water will still meet established standards after receiving the wastes. Doe verbally advises XYZ, prior to completion of a written report, that standards won’t be met, and that corrective action will be very costly. • XYZ terminates Doe’s contract, with full payment, and instructs him not to prepare a written report. • XYZ presents data at a public hearing that standards will be met. • Doe learns of the hearing and XYZ’s presentation, but does not report his earlier contradictory findings to the authority.

19. E-1: Information Damaging to Client’s Interest • Question: Was it ethical for Doe not to report his findings to the authority upon learning of the hearing?

20. E-1: Information Damaging to Client’s Interest • Discussion: • The engineer will act in professional matters for each client or employer as a faithful agent or trustee, Doe did right to advise XYZ as he did. • Termination of contract with full pay for services rendered is a business decision. Doe has reason to question why a written report was requested to not be rendered. • Doe learning of the hearing is a circumstance where the engineer should report requests for “unprofessional conduct” to the authorities. • Doe’s duty to the public is paramount, as concerns safety, health and welfare.

21. E-1: Information Damaging to Client’s Interest • Conclusion: It was unethical for Doe not to report his findings to the authority upon learning of the hearing. (Basis: NSPE BER Case 76-4)

22. E-4: Client Request for Secrecy • Facts: • Engineer A is designer of a large commercial building, and used new and innovative design concepts. After construction is complete and the building is occupied, “A” finds an omission in his calculations, building could collapse under severe, but not unusual wind conditions. • “A,” the architect, client, and city engineer “B” agree upon remedial construction at night, when the building is unoccupied. A storm monitoring system and evacuation plan for the building and surrounding neighborhood are developed. • Architect and client want the situation to be kept secret, to avoid consequences of a public panic, but the city engineer “B” has concern for the public and their right to know.

23. E-4: Client Request for Secrecy • Questions: • Is it ethical for Engineer A, the structural engineer, to comply with the client’s and architect’s desire for secrecy? • Is it ethical for Engineer B, the city engineer, to maintain the secrecy?

24. E-4: Client Request for Secrecy • Discussion: • Paramount is public health and safety! • “A” is to be commended for promptly reporting his findings. • Nevertheless, repairs will take months, occupants and large area of the city are in jeopardy, with an untested evacuation plan. • “A” went along with the client’s desire for work at night, maintaining the secrecy.

25. E-4: Client Request for Secrecy • Conclusions: • It was not ethical for Engineer A, the structural engineer, to comply with the client’s and architect’s desire for secrecy. • It was not ethical for Engineer B, the city engineer, to maintain the secrecy. (Basis: NSPE BER Case 98-9)

26. Premise F Situations may arise where your direct supervisor uses unethical decision-making, and you must be prepared to take appropriate action when this occurs.