http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/EthicsResources/BER/index.html#2010
Obligation to Communicate in an Appropriate Manner
Facts:
Engineer A reads a public online newspaper blog relating to a local construction project. Engineer
A strenuously disagrees with the view of the author of the blog and so writes a lengthy response to
the online blog which also includes coarse, abusive, and obscene language. Engineer A includes his
name along with his P.E. designation.
Question:
Was it ethical for Engineer A to include his P.E. designation in the blog posting?
of
Conclusion:
It was unethical for Engineer A to post a response to the online blog using coarse, abusive, and
obscene language regardless of whether or not he included his name or PE designation.
Employment—Cash Door Prize
Facts:
Engineer A works for UVW Engineering. As part of Engineer A’s activities and employment
responsibilities on behalf of UVW Engineering, he attends various conferences and trade shows.
While attending a recent conference and trade show at UVW Engineering’s expense, Engineer A
won a door prize worth $5,000.
Question:
Would it be ethical for Engineer A to keep the door prize or is he required to remit the prize to
UVW Engineering?
Conclusion:
Engineer A has an ethical obligation to, at a minimum, report the substantial door prize to UVW
Engineering since Engineer A attended the educational event at the expense of UVW Engineering.
The ultimate decision as to the best method of addressing this matter is solely between Engineer A
and UVW Engineering.
Advertising—Internet-Based Marketing Service
Facts:
Engineer A pays a fee to be included in a Web site listing of engineers who offer services in an area
of expertise in a specific geographic location. The service essentially works as a "matchmaking"
process. Potential clients initiate contact by visiting the Web site and by voluntarily providing the
requested information about their project requirements. The Web site does not contain language
endorsing any engineer but instead includes disclaimers to the contrary.
Question:
Was it ethical for Engineer A to participate in the Internet–based service under these
circumstances?
Conclusion:
It was ethical for Engineer A to participate in the Internet-based marketing service under these
circumstances.
Employment—Duty to Inform Employer of Outside Practice
Facts:
Engineer A works as an employee for QRS Engineering on a full time basis. Engineer A also has
his own separate engineering practice in which he performs services that are also performed by
QRS Engineering. Engineer A's work, including all client contacts, is done completely on his own
time (evenings and weekends), using his own equipment and materials. Engineer A does not
attempt to lure existing QRS Engineering clients to his engineering practice. The QRS Engineering
Employee Handbook has no specific policy that addresses performing outside work, and Engineer
A does not advise the firm of his outside practice.
Question:
Would it be ethical for Engineer A to continue to perform engineering services in his own
engineering practice in the manner indicated?
Conclusion:
It would be unethical for Engineer A to continue to perform engineering services in his own
engineering practice in the manner indicated without clearly and unambiguously advising his fulltime employer QRS Engineering.
Duty to Report Impaired Colleague
Facts:
Engineer A and Engineer B are partners in the ABC Engineering Company. Recently, Engineer A
has learned that Engineer B has missed certain deadlines in connection with the preparation and the
filing of client documents before public authorities. This is not the first time Engineer B has missed
deadlines. These failures have resulted in both inconvenience and cost to the clients. Engineer B
was perceived to be impaired by alcohol during work on several occasions, a matter which Engineer
A discussed with Engineer B in the past. Engineer B has responded that there is no alcohol problem
and that he will correct the missed deadlines in the future. However, Engineer B continues to miss
deadlines.
Question:
Does Engineer A have any ethical obligations under the circumstances?
Conclusion:
Engineer A should contact an appropriate alcohol or substance abuse counseling group for
professionals to assist in developing an outreach effort for Engineer B.
Public Criticism – Comments Made at Engineering College
Facts:
Engineer A, the president of a professional engineering society, is invited to address a gathering of
engineers and engineering students at a college of engineering where engineering students,
engineering faculty, and university administration are present. During Engineer A’s presentation,
Engineer A makes some general comments that could be interpreted as critical of certain research,
instructional, and educational methods employed by some college engineering programs, including
the program at the university hosting the event. Following his remarks, Engineer A is criticized by
some of the engineering faculty and university officials for what are perceived as Engineer A’s
critical remarks. Some of the engineering faculty contact Engineer A and request an apology or a
retraction of his remarks. Engineer A refuses to issue an apology.
Questions:
1. Was it ethical for Engineer A to make his comments critical of certain research, instructional, and
educational methods employed by some college engineering programs, including the program at
the university hosting the event?
2. Was it ethical for Engineer A to refuse to apologize for his remarks?
Conclusions:
1. It was ethical for Engineer A to make his comments critical of certain research, instructional, and
educational methods employed by some college engineering programs, including the program at the
university hosting the event.
2. Although it may have been appropriate for Engineer A to apologize, it was not unethical for
Engineer A to refuse to apologize for his remarks.
Withholding Information Useful to Client/Public Agency
Facts:
Engineer A is the owner of ABC Engineering in State P. Engineer X is the owner of XYZ
Engineering in State Q. Engineer X is retained to provide engineering services for Client L located
in State P for a project in State P. Client L is a former client of Engineer A’s firm. Engineer A
learns that XYZ Engineering does not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering
in State P.
Question:
What are Engineer A’s ethical obligations under these facts?
Conclusion:
Engineer A should communicate with Engineer X to obtain clarification regarding the matter in
question. If Engineer A is not sufficiently satisfied with Engineer X’s explanation, Engineer A may
be required to report this matter to the state engineering licensure board.
Conflict of Interest – Father’s Ownership of Property Adjacent to Client
Facts:
Engineer A has been assigned by her engineering firm to work with a local developer on a
commercial development project. While performing the work, Engineer A becomes aware that her
father, an adjacent landowner, is participating with a community group in an appeal of a zoning
board’s decision to grant the developer a zoning reclassification of the developer’s property in order
to permit the building of commercial development. Engineer A’s father has the adjoining property
and is planning to build a new home.
Question:
What are Engineer A’s ethical obligations under the circumstances?
Conclusion:
Engineer A has an ethical obligation to fully disclose this information to both the employer and
developer client; it is for those parties to determine whether Engineer A should continue on this
assignment.
Selection of Firm— Promise of Future Engineering Work on a Public Project
Facts:
Engineer A is a principal in a medium-sized engineering firm with expertise in mechanical and
electrical engineering. Engineer A’s firm is retained on a speculative basis by Engineer B, a local
civil engineer, to assist City X in applying for a federal grant for certain wastewater treatment
equipment upgrades for the city’s wastewater treatment facility. The application is successful, City
X obtains the grant, and Engineer B is retained to design the waste water equipment upgrades. In
recognition of Engineer A’s work in securing the grant, Engineer C, the chief city engineer,
verbally promises to select Engineer A’s firm on a future engineering project for City X.
Question:
Was it ethical for Engineer C to offer to select Engineer A’s firm on a future engineering project for
City X?
It was not ethical for Engineer C to promise to select Engineer A’s firm on a future engineering
project for City X.
Whistleblowing—Industrial Design
Facts:
Engineer A is employed as an engineer with Company X, which designs and manufactures certain
industrial machinery. Engineer A made certain recommendations in connection with the design of a
new type of industrial equipment. Following a meeting with Supervisor B, Engineer A is informed
that his design will not be accepted by Company X because it will result in higher manufacturing
costs. In response to Company X’s decision, Engineer A informs Supervisor B that if Company X
does not follow Engineer A’s proposed design, Engineer A will consider reporting Company X’s
industrial waste-disposal methods to appropriate authorities, which could result in significant fines
and criminal penalties. Engineer A’s design recommendations have no bearing on Company X’s
industrial waste-disposal methods.
Question:
Was it ethical for Engineer A to coerce Company X into accepting his design by threatening to
report Company X to the appropriate authorities?
Conclusion:
It was unethical for Engineer A to coerce Company X into accepting his design by threatening to
report Company X to the appropriate authorities. Independent of the issues regarding Engineer A’s
design, Engineer A cannot ignore illegal waste-disposal methods and is obligated ethically to
present such information to the proper authorities.