Engineering Ethics
Reed the following articles provided to you:
1. “5 Most Publicized Ethics Violations by CEOs” by Angie Mohr, published by http://www.investopedia.com, January 30, 2013
2. “Engineering Ethics” published by Wikipedia.
3. “An Engineering Theory of The Volkswagen Scandal” By Paul Kedrosky, The New Yorker. October 16, 2015,
4. “Code of Ethics for Engineers” by National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE), July 2007 and ASME Ethics Policy, 2/1/2012.
5. “10 Types of Scientific Misconduct” by Enago Academy5 Most Publicized Ethics Violations by CEOs
Topics
Reference
Advisors
Page 1 of 5
Markets
Simulator
Academy
Search News, Symbols, Terms
5 Most Publicized Ethics Violations by CEOs
By Angie Mohr | Updated January 30, 2013 — 2:00 AM EST
SHA
You May Also Like (Sponsored): Adaptive Portfolio, the robo advisor from E*TRADE. Learn more here.
Loading the player…
High-profile downfalls of corporate CEOs are not a new phenomenon. But legislation such as
Sarbanes-Oxley makes corporate oversight and protection of shareholder rights by the board of
directors a priority. It also uncovers an increasingly alarming set of CEO ethics violations, many of
which land the corporate head in jail. Here are five of the most public and egregious CEO ethics
failures.
Kenneth Lay – Enron
Enron’s downfall, and the imprisonment of several of its leadership group, was one of the most
shocking and widely reported ethics violations of all time. It not only bankrupted the company but
also destroyed Arthur Andersen, one of the largest audit firms in the world.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced in 2001 that it was investigating the
accounting practices of Enron after several years of questions raised by analysts and shareholders.
The resulting disclosures and write-downs by the company reduced investor confidence and the
company’s credit rating, leading to the bankruptcy in December 2001. The SEC announced that it
would pursue charges against Lay, former CEO Jeffrey Skilling, CFO Andrew Fastow and other highranking employees.
The charges related to knowingly manipulating accounting rules and masking the enormous losses
and liabilities of the company. Lay and Skilling were tried together on 46 counts, including money
laundering, bank fraud, insider trading and conspiracy. Skilling was convicted on 19 counts and
sentenced to over 24 years in prison.
HOT DEFINITIONS
Lay was convicted on six counts of fraud and faced up to 45 years in jail. Lay died in 2006, three
months prior to his sentencing hearing. The resulting investigation of the Enron scandal resulted in
Congress passing the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to improve corporate accountability.
Current Ratio
SEC Form 13F
Quantitative Easing
Bernard Ebbers – Worldcom
As the SEC was conducting its investigation of Enron, an even larger CEO ethics violation was
brewing. Worldcom, which at the time was the United States’ second-largest long-distance
telecommunications company, entered into merger discussions with Sprint. The merger was
Risk Averse
Indirect Tax
Zero-Sum Game
http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0113/5-most-publicized-ethics-violations-by-…
5 Most Publicized Ethics Violations by CEOs
Page 2 of 5
ultimately dashed by the Department of Justice over concerns about it creating a virtual monopoly.
Topics
Reference
The situation took its toll on the company’s stock price.
Advisors
Markets
Simulator
CEO Bernard Ebbers owned hundreds of millions of dollars in Worldcom stock, which he margined
to invest in other business ventures. As the stock price dropped, banks began demanding that
Ebbers cover more than $400 million in margin calls. Ebbers convinced the board to lend him the
money so that he would not have to sell substantial blocks of stock. He also began an aggressive
campaign to prop up the stock price by creating outright fraudulent accounting entries. The fraud
was ultimately discovered by Worldcom’s internal audit department, and the audit committee was
informed. The resulting SEC investigation resulted in the company’s bankruptcy filing in 2002 and
the conviction of Ebbers on fraud, conspiracy and filing false documents charges. Ebbers began a
25-year sentence in federal prison in 2006.
Conrad Black – Hollinger International
Canadian Conrad Black created Hollinger Inc., the parent company of Hollinger International, in the
mid-1980s with the purchase of the controlling interest in the Daily Telegraph. With a number of
other purchases throughout the following 15 years, Hollinger became one of the largest media
groups in the world. As CEO of Hollinger International, Black had substantial control over the
company’s finances.
The board of directors confronted Black in 2003 over payments the company made to him and four
other directors in the $200 million range. The board called in the SEC to investigate the validity of
the payments and the accounting transactions created to account for them. Charges were laid
against Black for fraud, tax evasion and racketeering, among others. In 2007, Black was convicted of
four of the 13 charges against him and was sentenced to 78 months in prison, of which he served 42.
He was released from prison in 2012.
Trading Center
Dennis Kozlowski – Tyco
Kozlowski, the CEO of Tyco, a massive security and electronics company, was also caught with his
hand in the corporate coffers. In 2002, the board of directors discovered that Kozlowski and Mark
Schwartz, the company’s CFO, had taken unauthorized bonuses and loans in the amount of $600
million. The men were brought up on charges of grand larceny and securities fraud, among others.
Kozlowski had paid for lavish parties, a Manhattan address and expensive jewelry with corporate
funds. His first trial in 2004 resulted in a mistrial, but in 2005 he was sentenced to between eight and
25 years.
Scott Thompson – Yahoo!
Compared with the other four infamous CEO bad boys on the list, Scott Thompson’s transgressions
may not seem so egregious. What shocked shareholders and media alike was the brazenness of his
Partner Links
Adaptive Portfolio, the robo advisor from E*TRADE.
Learn more here.
Adaptive Portfolio, an innovative way to invest with
E*TRADE. Learn more.
deception and the lack of oversight that allowed it to happen. Thompson was brought in as Yahoo’s
new CEO in early 2012, in an attempt to reverse the struggling company’s fortunes. By May, a
shareholder activist group alleged that Thompson had embellished his resume by claiming he had a
degree in computer science, along with an accounting degree. He has only an accounting degree.
There are two significant ramifications of the deception, which Thompson characterized as
“inadvertent.” The first is that it means the board did not fully vet him before hiring. More
importantly, because the false information appeared in SEC filings, the company and Thompson
himself may face disciplinary or legal action. Thompson voluntarily stepped down as CEO in May.
The Bottom Line
CEOs have always been expected by shareholders and investors to maintain high ethical standards.
Although it doesn’t always happen, today’s regulatory environment makes it easier to identify
transgressions and bring violators to justice.
http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0113/5-most-publicized-ethics-violations-by-…
Engineering ethics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Engineering ethics is the field of applied ethics and system of moral principles that apply to the practice of
engineering. The field examines and sets the obligations by engineers to society, to their clients, and to the
profession. As a scholarly discipline, it is closely related to subjects such as the philosophy of science, the
philosophy of engineering, and the ethics of technology.
Contents
1 Background and origins
1.1 The 19th century and growing concern
1.2 Turning of the 20th century and turning point
1.3 Recent developments
2 General principles
2.1 Obligation to society
2.2 Whistleblowing
2.3 Conduct
3 Case studies and key individuals
4 Notes
5 References
6 Further reading
7 External links
7.1 Australia
7.2 Canada
7.3 Germany
7.4 Ireland
7.5 Sri Lanka
7.6 United Kingdom
7.7 United States
7.8 International
Background and origins
The 19th century and gr owing concern
As engineering rose as a distinct profession during the 19th century,
engineers saw themselves as either independent professional
practitioners or technical employees of large enterprises. There was
considerable tension between the two sides as large industrial
employers fought to maintain control of their employees.[1]
In the United States growing professionalism gave rise to the
The first Tay Bridge collapsed in 1879.
development of four founding engineering societies: The American
At least sixty were killed.
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (1851), the American Institute of
Electrical Engineers (AIEE) (1884),[2] the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) (1880), and the American Institute of Mining Engineers (AIME) (1871).[3]
ASCE and AIEE were more closely identified with the engineer as learned professional, where ASME, to an
extent, and AIME almost entirely, identified with the view that the engineer is a technical employee.[4]
Even so, at that time ethics was viewed as a personal rather than a broad professional concern.[5][6]:6
Turning of the 20th century and turning point
When the 19th century drew to a close and the 20th century began,
there had been series of significant structural failures, including some
spectacular bridge failures, notably the Ashtabula River Railroad
Disaster (1876), Tay Bridge Disaster (1879), and the Quebec Bridge
collapse (1907). These had a profound effect on engineers and forced
the profession to confront shortcomings in technical and construction
practice, as well as ethical standards.[7]
One response was the development of formal codes of ethics by three of
the four founding engineering societies. AIEE adopted theirs in 1912.
ASCE and ASME did so in 1914.[8] AIME did not adopt a code of
ethics in its history.[4]
The Boston molasses disasterprovided a
strong impetus for the establishment of
professional licensing and codes of
ethics in the United States.
Concerns for professional practice and protecting the public highlighted
by these bridge failures, as well as the Boston molasses disaster (1919),
provided impetus for another movement that had been underway for
some time: to require formal credentials (Professional licensure in the US.) as a requirement to practice. This
involves meeting some combination of educational, experience, and testing requirements.[9]
In 1950, the Association of German Engineers developed an oath for all its members titled ‘The Confession of
the Engineers’, directly hinting at the role of engineers in the atrocities committed during World War
II.[10][11][12]
Over the following decades most American states and Canadian provinces either required engineers to be
licensed, or passed special legislation reserving title rights to organization of professional engineers.[13] The
Canadian model is to require all persons working in fields of engineering that posed a risk to life, health,
property, the public welfare and the environment to be licensed, and all provinces required licensing by the
1950s.
The US model has generally been only to require those practicing independently (i.e. consulting engineers) to
be licensed, while engineers working in industry, education, and sometimes government need not be licensed.
This has perpetuated the split between professional engineers and those in industry.[14] Professional societies
have adopted generally uniform codes of ethics. On the other hand, technical societies have generally not
adopted these, but instead sometimes offer ethics education and resources to members similar to those of the
professional societies. This is not uniform, and the question of who is to be held in the highest regard: the
public or the employer, is still an open one in industry, and sometimes in professional practice.[13]
Recent developments
Efforts to promote ethical practice continue. In addition to the professional societies and chartering
organizations efforts with their members, the Canadian Iron Ring and American Order of the Engineer trace
their roots to the 1907 Quebec Bridge collapse. Both require members to swear an oath to uphold ethical
practice and wear a symbolic ring as a reminder.
In the United States, the National Society of Professional Engineers released in 1946 its Canons of Ethics for
Engineers and Rules of Professional Conduct, which evolved to the current Code of Ethics, adopted in 1964.
These requests ultimately led to the creation of the Board of Ethical Review in 1954. Ethics cases rarely have
easy answers, but the BER’s nearly 500 advisory opinions have helped bring clarity to the ethical issues
engineers face daily.[15]
Currently, bribery and political corruption is being addressed very directly by several professional societies and
business groups around the world.[16][17] However, new issues have arisen, such as offshoring, sustainable
development, and environmental protection, that the profession is having to consider and address.
General principles
Codes of engineering ethics identify a specific precedence with respect
to the engineer’s consideration for the public, clients, employers, and
the profession.
Many engineering professional societies have prepared codes of ethics.
Some date to the early decades of the twentieth century.[13] These have
been incorporated to a greater or lesser degree into the regulatory laws
of several jurisdictions. While these statements of general principles
served as a guide, engineers still require sound judgment to interpret
how the code would apply to specific circumstances.
The general principles of the codes of ethics are largely similar across
the various engineering societies and chartering authorities of the
world,[20] which further extend the code and publish specific
guidance.[21] The following is an example from the American Society
of Civil Engineers:[22]
William LeMessurier’s responseto
design deficiencies uncovered after
construction of the Citigroup Center is
often cited as an example of ethical
conduct.
“
Engineers, in the
fulfillment of their
professional duties,
shall hold paramount
the safety, health, and
welfare of the public
”
1. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of
the public and shall strive to comply with the principles of
sustainable development in the performance of their professional
duties.[22]
— National Society of Professional
2. Engineers shall perform services only in areas of their
Engineers, [18]
[22]
competence.
3. Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and
A practitioner shall,
[22]
truthful manner.
regard the practitioner’s
4. Engineers shall act in professional matters for each employer or
duty to public welfare
client as faithful agents or trustees, and shall avoid conflicts of
as paramount.”
[22]
interest.
— Professional Engineers Ontario,[19]
5. Engineers shall build their professional reputation on the merit
of their services and shall not compete unfairly with others.
6. Engineers shall act in such a manner as to uphold and enhance the honor, integrity, and dignity of the
engineering profession and shall act with zero-tolerance for bribery, fraud, and corruption.[22]
7. Engineers shall continue their professional development throughout their careers, and shall provide
opportunities for the professional development of those engineers under their supervision.[22]
“
”
Obligation to society
The paramount value recognized by engineers is the safety and welfare of the public. As demonstrated by the
following selected excerpts, this is the case for professional engineering organizations in nearly every
jurisdiction and engineering discipline:
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers: “We, the members of the IEEE, … do hereby
commit ourselves to the highest ethical and professional conduct and agree: 1. to accept responsibility in
making decisions consistent with the safety, health and welfare of the public, and to disclose promptly
factors that might endanger the public or the environment;”[23]
Institution of Civil Engineers: “Members of the ICE should always be aware of their overriding
responsibility to the public good. A member’s obligations to the client can never override this, and
members of the ICE should not enter undertakings which compromise this responsibility. The ‘public
good’ encompasses care and respect for the environment, and for humanity’s cultural, historical and
archaeological heritage, as well as the primary responsibility members have to protect the health and well
being of present and future generations.”[24]
Professional Engineers Ontario: “A practitioner shall, regard the practitioner’s duty to public welfare as
paramount.”[19]
National Society of Professional Engineers: “Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties,
shall: Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.”[18]
American Society of Mechanical Engineers: “Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and
welfare of the public in the performance of their professional duties.”[25]
Institute of Industrial Engineers: “Engineers uphold and advance the integrity, honor and dignity of the
engineering profession by: 2. Being honest and impartial, and serving with fidelity the public, their
employers and clients.”[26]
American Institute of Chemical Engineers: “To achieve these goals, members shall hold paramount the
safety, health and welfare of the public and protect the environment in performance of their professional
duties.”[27]
American Nuclear Society: “ANS members uphold and advance the integrity and honor of their
professions by using their knowledge and skill for the enhancement of human welfare and the
environment; being honest and impartial; serving with fidelity the public, their employers, and their
clients; and striving to continuously improve the competence and prestige of their various
professions.”[28]
Society of Fire Protection Engineers: “In the practice of their profession, fire protection engineers must
maintain and constantly improve their competence and perform under a standard of professional behavior
which requires adherence to the highest principles of ethical conduct with balanced regard for the
interests of the public, clients, employers, colleagues, and the profession.”[29]
Responsibility of engineers
The engineer recognizes that the greatest merit is the work and exercises his profession committed to serving
society, attending to the welfare and progress of the majority. By transforming nature for the benefit of
mankind, the engineer must increase his awareness of the world as the abode of man, his interest in the universe
as a guarantee of overcoming his spirit, and knowledge of reality to make the world fairer and happier. The
engineer should reject any paper that is intended to harm the general interest, thus avoiding a situation that
might be hazardous or threatening to the environment, life, health, or other rights of human beings. It is an
inescapable duty of the engineer to uphold the prestige of the profession, to ensure its proper discharge, and to
maintain a professional demeanor rooted in ability, honesty, fortitude, temperance, magnanimity, modesty,
honesty, and justice; with the consciousness of individual well-being subordinate to the social good. The
engineer and his employer must ensure the continuous improvement of his knowledge, particularly of his
profession, disseminate his knowledge, share his experience, provide opportunities for education and training
of workers, provide recognition, moral and material support to the school where he studied, thus returning the
benefits and opportunities he and his employer have received. It is the responsibility of the engineer to carry out
his work efficiently and to support the law. In particular, he must ensure compliance with the standards of
worker protection as provided by the law. As a professional, the engineer is expected to commit himself to high
standards of conduct (NSPE). [1] 11/27/11
Whistleblowing
A basic ethical dilemma is that an engineer has the duty to report to the appropriate authority a possible risk to
others from a client or employer failing to follow the engineer’s directions. According to first principles, this
duty overrides the duty to a client and/or employer.[30] An engineer may be disciplined, or have their license
revoked, even if the failure to report such a danger does not result in the loss of life or health.[31]
In many cases, this duty can be discharged by advising the client of the consequences in a forthright matter, and
ensuring the client takes the engineer’s advice. In very rare cases, where even a governmental authority may not
take appropriate action, the engineer can only discharge the duty by making the situation public.[32] As a result,
whistleblowing by professional engineers is not an unusual event, and courts have often sided with engineers in
such cases, overruling duties to employers and confidentiality considerations that otherwise would have
prevented the engineer from speaking out.[33]
Conduct
There are several other ethical issues that engineers may face. Some
have to do with technical practice, but many others have to do with
broader considerations of business conduct. These include:[21]
Relationships with clients, consultants, competitors, and
contractors
Ensuring legal compliance by clients, client’s contractors, and
others
Conflict of interest
Bribery and kickbacks, which also may include:
Gifts, meals, services, and entertainment
Treatment of confidential or proprietary information
Consideration of the employer’s assets
Outside employment/activities (Moonlighting)
The Space Shuttle Challenger disasteris
used as a case study of whistleblowing
and organizational behavior including
groupthink.
Some engineering societies are addressing environmental protection as
a stand-alone question of ethics.[22]
The field of business ethics often overlaps and informs ethical decision making for engineers.
Case studies and key individuals
Petroski notes that most engineering failures are much more involved than simple technical mis-calculations
and involve the failure of the design process or management culture.[34] However, not all engineering failures
involve ethical issues. The infamous collapse of the first Tacoma Narrows Bridge, and the losses of the Mars
Polar Lander and Mars Climate Orbiter were technical and design process failures.
These episodes of engineering failure include ethical as well as technical issues.
Space Shuttle Columbia disaster (2003)
Space Shuttle Challenger disaster (1986)
Therac-25 accidents (1985 to 1987)
Chernobyl disaster (1986)
Bhopal disaster (1984)
Kansas City Hyatt Regency walkway collapse (1981)
Love Canal (1980), Lois Gibbs
Three Mile Island accident (1979)
Citigroup Center (1978),
Ford Pinto safety problems (1970s)
Minamata disease (1908–1973)
Chevrolet Corvair safety problems (1960s), Ralph Nader, and Unsafe at Any Speed
Boston molasses disaster (1919)
Quebec Bridge collapse (1907), Theodore Cooper
Johnstown Flood (1889), South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club
Tay Bridge Disaster (1879), Thomas Bouch, William Henry Barlow, and William Yolland
Ashtabula River Railroad Disaster (1876), Amasa Stone
Notes
1. Layton (1986). pp. 6-9
2. The AIEE merged with the Institute of Radio Engineers (IRE) (1912) in 1963 to form the IEEE.
3. AIME is now the umbrella organization of four technical societies: the Society for Mining, Metallurgy,
and Exploration (http://www.smenet.org/) (SME) (1957), The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society
(TMS) (1957), the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) (1957), and the Association For Iron and Steel
Technology (http://www.aist.org) (AIST) (1974). Neither AIME, nor its subsidiary societies have adopted
a formal code of ethics.
4. Layton (1986) p. 35.
5. ASCE (2000). p. 10.
6. Flavell, Eric. “The ASCE Code of Ethics: PRINCIPLES, STUDY, AND APPLICATION” (https://web.ar
chive.org/web/20131203133506/http://www.asce.org/Ethics/Principles-Study-Application/ASCE-Code-o
f-Ethics–Principles,-Study,-and-Application/). ASCE. Archived from the original (http://www.asce.org/E
thics/Principles-Study-Application/ASCE-Code-of-Ethics–Principles,-Study,-and-Application/) on 201312-03. Retrieved Nov 27, 2013.
7. ASME member H.F.J. Porter had proposed as early as 1892 that the engineering societies adopt uniform
membership, education, and licensing requirements as well as a code of ethics. (Layton (1986). pp. 4546)
8. Layton (1986). pp. 70 & 114.
9. Layton (1986). pp. 124-125.
10. Dietz, Burkhard, ed. (1996). Technische Intelligenz und “Kulturfaktor Technik” (https://books.google.nl/b
ooks?id=FGfkMqguYd4C). p. 29.
11. Lorenz, Werner; Meyer, Torsen (2004). Technik und Verantwortung im Nationalsozialismus (https://book
s.google.nl/books?id=9ClQ9yxA7-QC). p. 55.
12. https://www.vdi.de/fileadmin/media/content/hg/16.pdf
13. Layton (1986)
14. Layton (1986). pp. 6-7
15. “Board of Ethical Review” (http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/BoardofEthicalReview/index.html). National
Society of Professional Engineers. 2013. Retrieved Nov 29, 2013.
16. Transparency International and Social Accountability International (2009). Business Principles for
Countering Bribery (http://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/pub/business_principles_for_countering_bri
bery). Retrieved 2013-11-29.
17. “Report Details Guidelines to Reduce Corruption in Engineering and Construction Industry” (https://web.
archive.org/web/20070930165346/http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=1794)
(Press release). ASCE. 2005-06-17. Archived from the original (http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/dis
play_press.cfm?uid=1794) on 2007-09-30. Retrieved 2006-10-20.
18. “NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers” (http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html). National
Society of Professional Engineers. 2013. Retrieved Nov 29, 2013.
19. PEO. Professional Engineers Ontario Code of Ethics. Section 77.2.i of the Ontario Regulation 941.
Retrieved: 2006-10-19.
20. ICE (2004).
21. ASCE (2000).
22. ASCE [1914] (2006).
23. IEEE (2006). Code of Ethics Canon 1. (http://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html).
Retrieved: 2006-10-19.
24. ICE (2004). p. 38.
25. “Code of Ethics of Engineers” (https://www.asme.org/getmedia/9EB36017-FA98-477E-8A73-77B04B36
D410/P157_Ethics.aspx). ASME. 2013. Retrieved Nov 29, 2013.
26. IIE. “Ethics”. [1] (http://www.iienet2.org/Details.aspx?id=299) Retrieved: 2011-6-01.
27. AIChE (2003). Code of Ethics (http://www.aiche.org/About/Code.aspx) Retrieved: 2006-10-21.
28. ANS (2003). Code of Ethics (http://www.new.ans.org/about/coe/) Retrieved: 2011-08-19.
29. “Code of Ethics – SFPE” (http://www.sfpe.org/page/CodeofEthics). www.sfpe.org. Retrieved 2017-05-18.
30. Weil, “Whistleblowing: What Have We Learned Since the Challenger?” (http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/Ethi
csResources/Otherresources/whistle.html)
31. See NSPE, Board of Ethical Review, Cases 82-5 (http://www.niee.org/cases/78-88/case82-5.htm) and 886 (http://www.niee.org/cases/78-88/case88-6.htm).
32. NSPE (2006-06-30). “Final Report of the NSPE Task Force on Overruling Engineering Judgment to the
NSPE Board of Directors” (http://164.109.88.17/ethics/FINALReporttoNSPEBoard-June2006.pdf)
(PDF). Retrieved 2008-02-20.
33. See the case of Shawn Carpenter.
34. Petroski (1985)
References
American Society of Civil Engineers (2010) [1914]. Code of Ethics. Reston, Virginia, USA: ASCE Press.
Retrieved 2011-12-07.
American Society of Civil Engineers (2000). Ethics Guidelines for Professional Conduct for Civil
Engineers (PDF). Reston, Virginia, USA: ASCE Press. Retrieved 2013-11-30.
Institution of Civil Engineers (2004). Royal Charter, By-laws, Regulations and Rules. Retrieved
2006-10-20.
Layton, Edwin (1986). The Revolt of the Engineers: Social Responsibility and the American Engineering
Profession. Baltimore, Maryland, USA: The Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-3287-X.
Petroski, Henry (1985). To Engineer is Human: the Role of Failure in Successful Design. St Martins
Press. ISBN 0-312-80680-9.
National Society of Professional Engineers (2007) [1964]. Code of Ethics (PDF). Alexandria, Virginia,
USA: NSPE. Retrieved 2006-10-20.
Further reading
Alford, C.F. (2002). Whistleblowers: Broken Lives and Organizational Power, Cornell University Press.
Fleddermann, C.B. (2011). Engineering Ethics, Prentice Hall, 4th edition.
Glazer, M.P. (1991).Whistleblower, New York, NY: Basic Books.
Harris, C.E., M.S. Pritchard, and M.J. Rabins (2008).Engineering Ethics: Concept and Cases,
Wadsworth Publishing, 4th edition.
Huesemann, Michael H., and Joyce A. Huesemann (2011). Technofix: Why Technology Won’t Save Us or
the Environment, Chapter 14, “Critical Science and Social Responsibility”, New Society Publishers,
Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada, ISBN 0865717044, 464 pp.
Martin, M.W., and R. Schinzinger (2004). Ethics in Engineering, McGraw-Hill, 4th edition.
Van de Poel, I., and L. Royakkers (2011). Ethics, Technology, and Engineering: An Introductio, WileyBlackwell.
External links
Australia
Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia
Ethical Decision Making
Engineers Australia
Code of Ethics
Canada
Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia (APEGBC)
Act, Bylaws and Code of Ethics
Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists, and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA)
EGGP Code of Ethics
Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Manitoba (APEGM)
Code of Ethics
Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO)
Code of Ethics (See link on front page.)
L’Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec (OIQ)
Code of Ethics of Engineers
Iron Ring
The Ritual of the Calling of an Engineer
University of Western Ontario
Software Ethics – A Guide to the Ethical and Legal Use of Software for Members of the University
Community of the University of Western Ontario
Germany
Verein Deutscher Ingenieure
Ethical principles of engineering profession
Ireland
Engineers Ireland
Code of Ethics
Sri Lanka
Institution of Engineers, Sri Lanka
Code of Ethics
United Kingdom
Association for Consultancy and Engineering (ACE)
Anti-Corruption Action Statement
Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE)
Royal Charter, By-laws, Regulations and Rules
Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET)
Professional ethics and the IET
Engineering Council (EC)
Statement of Ethical Principles
United States
National Academy of Engineering
Online Ethics Center of the National Academy of Engineering
List of links to various professional and scientific societies’ codes of ethics
Onlineethics.org
National Institute for Engineering Ethics (NIEE)
National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE)
Code of Ethics
Board of Ethical Review and BER Cases
Ethics Resources and References
American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE)
Code of Ethics
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
Code of Ethics
Standards of Professional Conduct for Civil Engineers
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Code of Ethics
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Code of Ethics
The Order of the Engineer
The Obligation of an Engineer
Society of Manufacturing Engineers (SME)
Code of Ethics
International
Global Infrastructure Anti-Corruption Centre
Transparency International
Retrieved from “https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Engineering_ethics&oldid=788806708”
This page was last edited on 3 July 2017, at 16:08.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may
apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered
trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
An Engineering Theory of the Volkswagen Scandal – The New Yorker
Page 2 of 7
AN ENGINEERING THEORY OF THE
VOLKSWAGEN SCANDAL
By Paul Kedrosky, OCTOBER 16, 2015
The real culprit behind the automaker’s woes may be the nature of engineering organizations themselves.
L
ast week, Volkswagen of America C.E.O. Michael Horn
told a House subcommittee investigating his company’s
ongoing emissions scandal that it wasn’t a corporate decision to
cheat emissions tests by installing “defeat” software in eleven
million diesel cars. Instead, Horn said, it was “a couple of
software engineers.” His interlocutor, Joe Barton, a Texas
Republican, reminded Horn that he was under oath and then
asked him when Volkswagen’s senior management in Europe
learned of the tampering, which reportedly began in 2009. When
Horn replied that they found out only this September, Barton
expressed incredulity.
“I agree, it’s very hard to believe,” Horn said.
Indeed, it was hard to believe. A couple of rogue engineers took it
upon themselves to write and install software that slashed
emissions on Volkswagen diesels, but only when the cars were
being tested, then kept it from senior company figures? Sure,
rogue financiers get caught up in scandals, but rogue engineers?
And rogue German engineers, no less, from a culture famously
fond of rules? Sag, dass das nicht wahr ist!
The explanation was at least mildly plausible, initially, though,
because a modern high-end car is staggeringly complex. It
http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/an-engineering-theory-of-the-volkswagen-… 10/17/2016
An Engineering Theory of the Volkswagen Scandal – The New Yorker
Page 3 of 7
requires something like a hundred million lines of code, about two
hundred and fifty times the number of lines in the Space Shuttle.
No one could know every line of that software, making it
theoretically possible that engineers could have sneaked in the
emissions-defeating protocol without Volkswagen’s upper
management knowing. Microsoft engineers did something like
that decades ago, when they slipped a flight-simulator game into
the shipping version of Excel 1997.
But on Wednesday, Spiegel issued a report, based on one of the
many investigations taking place at Volkswagen and around the
world, saying that at least thirty managers were involved in the
cheating. This squares with Barton’s skepticism, not to mention
common sense. Volkswagen engineers didn’t smuggle in software
that allows you to play Tetris on in-car G.P.S. screens. They
wrote code that fundamentally changed how the company’s diesel
cars worked. The altered software affected engine emissions,
mileage, cost, and power—all things that auto executives care
about. In other words, while it’s technically possible to install such
software, it’s hard to imagine that it could have gone unnoticed.
Modern automobile engines are made by teams that design, build,
test, and tune everything to produce the desired effect.
Companies have been building these engines for more than a
hundred years, refining a process the leaves no room for mysteries
or magic outcomes. When a car produces more power, there is a
reason; when a car produces fewer emissions, there is a reason.
And when, at Volkswagen, its diesel engine produced forty times
more nitrogen oxide when it wasn’t being tested than when it
was, many people inside would have known why.
In a powerful book about the disintegration, immediately after
launch, of the Challenger space shuttle, which killed seven
http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/an-engineering-theory-of-the-volkswagen-… 10/17/2016
An Engineering Theory of the Volkswagen Scandal – The New Yorker
Page 4 of 7
astronauts in January of 1986, the sociologist Diane Vaughan
described a phenomenon inside engineering organizations that
she called the “normalization of deviance.” In such cultures, she
argued, there can be a tendency to slowly and progressively create
rationales that justify ever-riskier behaviors. Starting in 1983, the
Challenger shuttle had been through nine successful launches, in
progressively lower ambient temperatures, across the years. Each
time the launch team got away with a lower-temperature launch,
Vaughan argued, engineers noted the deviance, then decided it
wasn’t sufficiently different from what they had done before to
constitute a problem. They effectively declared the mildly
abnormal normal, making deviant behavior acceptable, right up
until the moment when, after the shuttle launched on a
particularly cold Florida morning in 1986, its O-rings failed
catastrophically and the ship broke apart.
If the same pattern proves to have played out at Volkswagen, then
the scandal may well have begun with a few lines of engine-tuning
software. Perhaps it started with tweaks that optimized some
aspect of diesel performance and then evolved over time: detect
this, change that, optimize something else. At every step, the
software changes might have seemed to be a slight
“improvement” on what came before, but at no one step would it
necessarily have felt like a vast, emissions-fixing conspiracy by
Volkswagen engineers, or been identified by Volkswagen
executives. Instead, it would have slowly and insidiously led to the
development of the defeat device and its inclusion in cars that
were sold to consumers.
If this was, in fact, the case, then Horn was basically right that
engineers were responsible. The scandal wouldn’t have been
caused by a few rogue engineers, though, so much as by the nature
http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/an-engineering-theory-of-the-volkswagen-… 10/17/2016
An Engineering Theory of the Volkswagen Scandal – The New Yorker
Page 5 of 7
of engineering organizations themselves. Faced with an
expensively engineered diesel engine that couldn’t meet strict
emissions standards, Volkswagen engineers “tuned” their engine
software. And they kept on tuning it, normalizing deviance along
the way, until they were far from where they started, to the point
of gaming the emissions tests by detecting test conditions and recalibrating the engine accordingly on the fly.
But assuming all of this is true, how could it have persisted for so
long, and without more people stepping forward and speaking
out? Two reasons come to mind. The first is that using software
to dodge rules doesn’t always feel illicit. Stealing CDs from stores
feels like theft; for a long time, at least, stealing music by
downloading MP3s didn’t. Software changes the nature of our
relationship to things, making rules feel malleable and more
arbitrary. It enables the normalization of deviance. The second
reason relates to pride. Volkswagen was heavily invested, both
financially and culturally, in producing a clean-diesel engine. That
the company was failing to meet the standard required by
American emissions tests would have been embarrassing and
frustrating to its German engineers. Some may have seen those
tests as arbitrary, and felt justified in “tuning” the engine software
to perform differently during them—even as it now looks, to the
outside world, like an obvious scandal.
We are, by now, used to seeing greed as the primary driver of
corporate scandals. In the wake of Enron and the mortgage fraud
that led to the financial crisis, the great surprise of the
Volkswagen scandal may prove to be that the malfeasance could
have arisen systemically, without the direct involvement of anyone
higher up (or the involvement of mortgage traders, for that
matter). It is still possible, of course, that we will learn that the
http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/an-engineering-theory-of-the-volkswagen-… 10/17/2016
An Engineering Theory of the Volkswagen Scandal – The New Yorker
Page 6 of 7
engineers were under orders from management to beat the tests
by any means necessary, but based on what we now know, that
seems implausible. It’s more likely that the scandal is the product
of an engineering organization that evolved its technologies in a
way that subtly and stealthily, even organically, subverted the
rules. Volkswagen is promising to release a fix for its software
soon; fixing its entire operation may leave it wishing it could
merely fire a few mortgage traders.
Paul Kedrosky is a venture investor and a former equity analyst. He lives and
writes in San Diego, California.
MORE:
ENGINEERING
WATCH: The rise of the electronic cigarette.
p
About
Careers
On The Town
Cartoon Bank
Press
Reprints
Contact
RSS
Customer Care
Site Map
Store
FAQ
Media Kit
Strongbox
http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/an-engineering-theory-of-the-volkswagen-… 10/17/2016
Code of Ethics for Engineers
Preamble
Engineering is an important and learned profession. As members
of this profession, engineers are expected to exhibit the highest
standards of honesty and integrity. Engineering has a direct and
vital impact on the quality of life for all people. Accordingly, the
services provided by engineers require honesty, impartiality,
fairness, and equity, and must be dedicated to the protection
of the public health, safety, and welfare. Engineers must
perform under a standard of professional behavior that requires
adherence to the highest principles of ethical conduct.
I. Fundamental Canons
Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall:
1. Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
2. Perform services only in areas of their competence.
3. Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful
manner.
4. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
5. Avoid deceptive acts.
6. Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically,
and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and
usefulness of the profession.
II. Rules of Practice
1. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and
welfare of the public.
a. If engineers’ judgment is overruled under
circumstances that endanger life or property, they shall
notify their employer or client and such other authority
as may be appropriate.
b. Engineers shall approve only those engineering documents
that are in conformity with applicable standards.
c. Engineers shall not reveal facts, data, or information
without the prior consent of the client or employer except
as authorized or required by law or this Code.
d. Engineers shall not permit the use of their name or
associate in business ventures with any person or firm
that they believe is engaged in fraudulent or dishonest
enterprise.
e. Engineers shall not aid or abet the unlawful practice of
engineering by a person or firm.
f. Engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of
this Code shall report thereon to appropriate professional
bodies and, when relevant, also to public authorities, and
cooperate with the proper authorities in furnishing such
information or assistance as may be required.
2. Engineers shall perform services only in the areas of their
competence.
a. Engineers shall undertake assignments only when
qualified by education or experience in the specific
technical fields involved.
b. Engineers shall not affix their signatures to any plans
or documents dealing with subject matter in which
they lack competence, nor to any plan or document not
prepared under their direction and control.
c. Engineers may accept assignments and assume
responsibility for coordination of an entire project and sign
and seal the engineering documents for the entire project,
provided that each technical segment is signed and sealed
only by the qualified engineers who prepared the segment.
3. Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective
and truthful manner.
a. Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional
reports, statements, or testimony. They shall include
all relevant and pertinent information in such reports,
statements, or testimony, which should bear the date
indicating when it was current.
b. Engineers may express publicly technical opinions
that are founded upon knowledge of the facts and
competence in the subject matter.
c. Engineers shall issue no statements, criticisms, or
arguments on technical matters that are inspired or paid
for by interested parties, unless they have prefaced their
comments by explicitly identifying the interested parties
on whose behalf they are speaking, and by revealing the
existence of any interest the engineers may have in the
matters.
4. Engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful
agents or trustees.
a. Engineers shall disclose all known or potential conflicts
of interest that could influence or appear to influence
their judgment or the quality of their services.
b. Engineers shall not accept compensation, financial or
otherwise, from more than one party for services on
the same project, or for services pertaining to the same
project, unless the circumstances are fully disclosed and
agreed to by all interested parties.
c. Engineers shall not solicit or accept financial or other
valuable consideration, directly or indirectly, from outside
agents in connection with the work for which they are
responsible.
d. Engineers in public service as members, advisors, or
employees of a governmental or quasi-governmental
body or department shall not participate in decisions with
respect to services solicited or provided by them or their
organizations in private or public engineering practice.
e. Engineers shall not solicit or accept a contract from a
governmental body on which a principal or officer of their
organization serves as a member.
5. Engineers shall avoid deceptive acts.
a. Engineers shall not falsify their qualifications or
permit misrepresentation of their or their associates’
qualifications. They shall not misrepresent or exaggerate
their responsibility in or for the subject matter of prior
assignments. Brochures or other presentations incident
to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent
pertinent facts concerning employers, employees,
associates, joint venturers, or past accomplishments.
b. Engineers shall not offer, give, solicit, or receive, either
directly or indirectly, any contribution to influence the
award of a contract by public authority, or which may be
reasonably construed by the public as having the effect
or intent of influencing the awarding of a contract. They
shall not offer any gift or other valuable consideration in
order to secure work. They shall not pay a commission,
percentage, or brokerage fee in order to secure work,
except to a bona fide employee or bona fide established
commercial or marketing agencies retained by them.
III. Professional Obligations
1. Engineers shall be guided in all their relations by the
highest standards of honesty and integrity.
a. Engineers shall acknowledge their errors and shall not
distort or alter the facts.
b. Engineers shall advise their clients or employers when
they believe a project will not be successful.
c. Engineers shall not accept outside employment to
the detriment of their regular work or interest. Before
accepting any outside engineering employment, they will
notify their employers.
d. Engineers shall not attempt to attract an engineer from
another employer by false or misleading pretenses.
e. Engineers shall not promote their own interest at the
expense of the dignity and integrity of the profession.
2. Engineers shall at all times strive to serve the public interest.
a. Engineers are encouraged to participate in civic affairs;
career guidance for youths; and work for the advancement
of the safety, health, and well-being of their community.
b. Engineers shall not complete, sign, or seal plans and/or
specifications that are not in conformity with applicable
engineering standards. If the client or employer insists
on such unprofessional conduct, they shall notify the
proper authorities and withdraw from further service on
the project.
c. Engineers are encouraged to extend public knowledge
and appreciation of engineering and its achievements.
d. Engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles
of sustainable development1 in order to protect the
environment for future generations.
1420 KING STREET • ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22314-2794 • 888-285-NSPE (6773) • LEGAL@NSPE.ORG • WWW.NSPE.ORG • PUBLICATION DATE AS REVISED JULY 2007 • PUBLICATION #1102
COPYRIGHT NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
3. Engineers shall avoid all conduct or practice that
deceives the public.
a. Engineers shall avoid the use of statements containing
a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a
material fact.
b. Consistent with the foregoing, engineers may advertise
for recruitment of personnel.
c. Consistent with the foregoing, engineers may prepare
articles for the lay or technical press, but such articles
shall not imply credit to the author for work performed
by others.
4. Engineers shall not disclose, without consent, confidential
information concerning the business affairs or technical
processes of any present or former client or employer, or
public body on which they serve.
a. Engineers shall not, without the consent of all
interested parties, promote or arrange for new
employment or practice in connection with a specific
project for which the engineer has gained particular
and specialized knowledge.
b. Engineers shall not, without the consent of all
interested parties, participate in or represent an
adversary interest in connection with a specific project
or proceeding in which the engineer has gained
particular specialized knowledge on behalf of a former
client or employer.
5. Engineers shall not be influenced in their professional
duties by conflicting interests.
a. Engineers shall not accept financial or other
considerations, including free engineering designs,
from material or equipment suppliers for specifying
their product.
b. Engineers shall not accept commissions or allowances,
directly or indirectly, from contractors or other parties
dealing with clients or employers of the engineer
in connection with work for which the engineer is
responsible.
6. Engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or
advancement or professional engagements by untruthfully
criticizing other engineers, or by other improper or
questionable methods.
a. Engineers shall not request, propose, or accept a
commission on a contingent basis under circumstances
in which their judgment may be compromised.
b. Engineers in salaried positions shall accept part-time
engineering work only to the extent consistent with
policies of the employer and in accordance with ethical
considerations.
c. Engineers shall not, without consent, use equipment,
supplies, laboratory, or office facilities of an employer
to carry on outside private practice.
7. Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or
falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation,
prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers.
Engineers who believe others are guilty of unethical or
illegal practice shall present such information to the
proper authority for action.
a. Engineers in private practice shall not review the work
of another engineer for the same client, except with the
knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of
such engineer with the work has been terminated.
b. Engineers in governmental, industrial, or educational
employ are entitled to review and evaluate the work of other
engineers when so required by their employment duties.
c. Engineers in sales or industrial employ are entitled to
make engineering comparisons of represented products
with products of other suppliers.
8. Engineers shall accept personal responsibility for their
professional activities, provided, however, that engineers
may seek indemnification for services arising out of
their practice for other than gross negligence, where the
engineer’s interests cannot otherwise be protected.
a. Engineers shall conform with state registration laws in
the practice of engineering.
b. Engineers shall not use association with a nonengineer, a
corporation, or partnership as a “cloak” for unethical acts.
9. Engineers shall give credit for engineering work to those
to whom credit is due, and will recognize the proprietary
interests of others.
a. Engineers shall, whenever possible, name the person or
persons who may be individually responsible for designs,
inventions, writings, or other accomplishments.
b. Engineers using designs supplied by a client recognize
that the designs remain the property of the client and
may not be duplicated by the engineer for others without
express permission.
c. Engineers, before undertaking work for others in
connection with which the engineer may make
improvements, plans, designs, inventions, or other
records that may justify copyrights or patents, should
enter into a positive agreement regarding ownership.
d. Engineers’ designs, data, records, and notes referring
exclusively to an employer’s work are the employer’s
property. The employer should indemnify the engineer
for use of the information for any purpose other than the
original purpose.
e. Engineers shall continue their professional development
throughout their careers and should keep current in their
specialty fields by engaging in professional practice,
participating in continuing education courses, reading
in the technical literature, and attending professional
meetings and seminars.
Footnote 1 “Sustainable development” is the challenge of meeting
human needs for natural resources, industrial products, energy,
food, transportation, shelter, and effective waste management while
conserving and protecting environmental quality and the natural
resource base essential for future development.
“By order of the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia, former Section 11(c) of the NSPE
Code of Ethics prohibiting competitive bidding, and all
policy statements, opinions, rulings or other guidelines
interpreting its scope, have been rescinded as unlawfully
interfering with the legal right of engineers, protected
under the antitrust laws, to provide price information to
prospective clients; accordingly, nothing contained in the
NSPE Code of Ethics, policy statements, opinions, rulings
or other guidelines prohibits the submission of price
quotations or competitive bids for engineering services
at any time or in any amount.”
Statement by NSPE Executive Committee
In order to correct misunderstandings which have been
indicated in some instances since the issuance of the
Supreme Court decision and the entry of the Final Judgment,
it is noted that in its decision of April 25, 1978, the Supreme
Court of the United States declared: “The Sherman Act does
not require competitive bidding.”
It is further noted that as made clear in the Supreme Court
decision:
1. Engineers and firms may individually refuse to bid for
engineering services.
2. Clients are not required to seek bids for engineering
services.
3. Federal, state, and local laws governing procedures
to procure engineering services are not affected, and
remain in full force and effect.
4. State societies and local chapters are free to actively
and aggressively seek legislation for professional
selection and negotiation procedures by public
agencies.
5. State registration board rules of professional conduct,
including rules prohibiting competitive bidding for
engineering services, are not affected and remain in
full force and effect. State registration boards with
authority to adopt rules of professional conduct may
adopt rules governing procedures to obtain engineering
services.
6. As noted by the Supreme Court, “nothing in the
judgment prevents NSPE and its members from
attempting to influence governmental action . . .”
Note: In regard to the question of application of the Code to
corporations vis-a-vis real persons, business form or type should
not negate nor influence conformance of individuals to the Code.
The Code deals with professional services, which services must
be performed by real persons. Real persons in turn establish and
implement policies within business structures. The Code is clearly
written to apply to the Engineer, and it is incumbent on members
of NSPE to endeavor to live up to its provisions. This applies to all
pertinent sections of the Code.
1420 KING STREET • ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22314-2794 • 888-285-NSPE (6773) • LEGAL@NSPE.ORG • WWW.NSPE.ORG • PUBLICATION DATE AS REVISED JULY 2007 • PUBLICATION #1102
COPYRIGHT NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Code of Ethics for Engineers
Preamble
Engineering is an important and learned profession. As members
of this profession, engineers are expected to exhibit the highest
standards of honesty and integrity. Engineering has a direct and
vital impact on the quality of life for all people. Accordingly, the
services provided by engineers require honesty, impartiality,
fairness, and equity, and must be dedicated to the protection
of the public health, safety, and welfare. Engineers must
perform under a standard of professional behavior that requires
adherence to the highest principles of ethical conduct.
I. Fundamental Canons
Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall:
1. Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
2. Perform services only in areas of their competence.
3. Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful
manner.
4. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
5. Avoid deceptive acts.
6. Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically,
and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and
usefulness of the profession.
II. Rules of Practice
1. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and
welfare of the public.
a. If engineers’ judgment is overruled under
circumstances that endanger life or property, they shall
notify their employer or client and such other authority
as may be appropriate.
b. Engineers shall approve only those engineering documents
that are in conformity with applicable standards.
c. Engineers shall not reveal facts, data, or information
without the prior consent of the client or employer except
as authorized or required by law or this Code.
d. Engineers shall not permit the use of their name or
associate in business ventures with any person or firm
that they believe is engaged in fraudulent or dishonest
enterprise.
e. Engineers shall not aid or abet the unlawful practice of
engineering by a person or firm.
f. Engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of
this Code shall report thereon to appropriate professional
bodies and, when relevant, also to public authorities, and
cooperate with the proper authorities in furnishing such
information or assistance as may be required.
2. Engineers shall perform services only in the areas of their
competence.
a. Engineers shall undertake assignments only when
qualified by education or experience in the specific
technical fields involved.
b. Engineers shall not affix their signatures to any plans
or documents dealing with subject matter in which
they lack competence, nor to any plan or document not
prepared under their direction and control.
c. Engineers may accept assignments and assume
responsibility for coordination of an entire project and sign
and seal the engineering documents for the entire project,
provided that each technical segment is signed and sealed
only by the qualified engineers who prepared the segment.
3. Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective
and truthful manner.
a. Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional
reports, statements, or testimony. They shall include
all relevant and pertinent information in such reports,
statements, or testimony, which should bear the date
indicating when it was current.
b. Engineers may express publicly technical opinions
that are founded upon knowledge of the facts and
competence in the subject matter.
c. Engineers shall issue no statements, criticisms, or
arguments on technical matters that are inspired or paid
for by interested parties, unless they have prefaced their
comments by explicitly identifying the interested parties
on whose behalf they are speaking, and by revealing the
existence of any interest the engineers may have in the
matters.
4. Engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful
agents or trustees.
a. Engineers shall disclose all known or potential conflicts
of interest that could influence or appear to influence
their judgment or the quality of their services.
b. Engineers shall not accept compensation, financial or
otherwise, from more than one party for services on
the same project, or for services pertaining to the same
project, unless the circumstances are fully disclosed and
agreed to by all interested parties.
c. Engineers shall not solicit or accept financial or other
valuable consideration, directly or indirectly, from outside
agents in connection with the work for which they are
responsible.
d. Engineers in public service as members, advisors, or
employees of a governmental or quasi-governmental
body or department shall not participate in decisions with
respect to services solicited or provided by them or their
organizations in private or public engineering practice.
e. Engineers shall not solicit or accept a contract from a
governmental body on which a principal or officer of their
organization serves as a member.
5. Engineers shall avoid deceptive acts.
a. Engineers shall not falsify their qualifications or
permit misrepresentation of their or their associates’
qualifications. They shall not misrepresent or exaggerate
their responsibility in or for the subject matter of prior
assignments. Brochures or other presentations incident
to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent
pertinent facts concerning employers, employees,
associates, joint venturers, or past accomplishments.
b. Engineers shall not offer, give, solicit, or receive, either
directly or indirectly, any contribution to influence the
award of a contract by public authority, or which may be
reasonably construed by the public as having the effect
or intent of influencing the awarding of a contract. They
shall not offer any gift or other valuable consideration in
order to secure work. They shall not pay a commission,
percentage, or brokerage fee in order to secure work,
except to a bona fide employee or bona fide established
commercial or marketing agencies retained by them.
III. Professional Obligations
1. Engineers shall be guided in all their relations by the
highest standards of honesty and integrity.
a. Engineers shall acknowledge their errors and shall not
distort or alter the facts.
b. Engineers shall advise their clients or employers when
they believe a project will not be successful.
c. Engineers shall not accept outside employment to
the detriment of their regular work or interest. Before
accepting any outside engineering employment, they will
notify their employers.
d. Engineers shall not attempt to attract an engineer from
another employer by false or misleading pretenses.
e. Engineers shall not promote their own interest at the
expense of the dignity and integrity of the profession.
2. Engineers shall at all times strive to serve the public interest.
a. Engineers are encouraged to participate in civic affairs;
career guidance for youths; and work for the advancement
of the safety, health, and well-being of their community.
b. Engineers shall not complete, sign, or seal plans and/or
specifications that are not in conformity with applicable
engineering standards. If the client or employer insists
on such unprofessional conduct, they shall notify the
proper authorities and withdraw from further service on
the project.
c. Engineers are encouraged to extend public knowledge
and appreciation of engineering and its achievements.
d. Engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles
of sustainable development1 in order to protect the
environment for future generations.
1420 KING STREET • ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22314-2794 • 888-285-NSPE (6773) • LEGAL@NSPE.ORG • WWW.NSPE.ORG • PUBLICATION DATE AS REVISED JULY 2007 • PUBLICATION #1102
COPYRIGHT NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
3. Engineers shall avoid all conduct or practice that
deceives the public.
a. Engineers shall avoid the use of statements containing
a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a
material fact.
b. Consistent with the foregoing, engineers may advertise
for recruitment of personnel.
c. Consistent with the foregoing, engineers may prepare
articles for the lay or technical press, but such articles
shall not imply credit to the author for work performed
by others.
4. Engineers shall not disclose, without consent, confidential
information concerning the business affairs or technical
processes of any present or former client or employer, or
public body on which they serve.
a. Engineers shall not, without the consent of all
interested parties, promote or arrange for new
employment or practice in connection with a specific
project for which the engineer has gained particular
and specialized knowledge.
b. Engineers shall not, without the consent of all
interested parties, participate in or represent an
adversary interest in connection with a specific project
or proceeding in which the engineer has gained
particular specialized knowledge on behalf of a former
client or employer.
5. Engineers shall not be influenced in their professional
duties by conflicting interests.
a. Engineers shall not accept financial or other
considerations, including free engineering designs,
from material or equipment suppliers for specifying
their product.
b. Engineers shall not accept commissions or allowances,
directly or indirectly, from contractors or other parties
dealing with clients or employers of the engineer
in connection with work for which the engineer is
responsible.
6. Engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or
advancement or professional engagements by untruthfully
criticizing other engineers, or by other improper or
questionable methods.
a. Engineers shall not request, propose, or accept a
commission on a contingent basis under circumstances
in which their judgment may be compromised.
b. Engineers in salaried positions shall accept part-time
engineering work only to the extent consistent with
policies of the employer and in accordance with ethical
considerations.
c. Engineers shall not, without consent, use equipment,
supplies, laboratory, or office facilities of an employer
to carry on outside private practice.
7. Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or
falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation,
prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers.
Engineers who believe others are guilty of unethical or
illegal practice shall present such information to the
proper authority for action.
a. Engineers in private practice shall not review the work
of another engineer for the same client, except with the
knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of
such engineer with the work has been terminated.
b. Engineers in governmental, industrial, or educational
employ are entitled to review and evaluate the work of other
engineers when so required by their employment duties.
c. Engineers in sales or industrial employ are entitled to
make engineering comparisons of represented products
with products of other suppliers.
8. Engineers shall accept personal responsibility for their
professional activities, provided, however, that engineers
may seek indemnification for services arising out of
their practice for other than gross negligence, where the
engineer’s interests cannot otherwise be protected.
a. Engineers shall conform with state registration laws in
the practice of engineering.
b. Engineers shall not use association with a nonengineer, a
corporation, or partnership as a “cloak” for unethical acts.
9. Engineers shall give credit for engineering work to those
to whom credit is due, and will recognize the proprietary
interests of others.
a. Engineers shall, whenever possible, name the person or
persons who may be individually responsible for designs,
inventions, writings, or other accomplishments.
b. Engineers using designs supplied by a client recognize
that the designs remain the property of the client and
may not be duplicated by the engineer for others without
express permission.
c. Engineers, before undertaking work for others in
connection with which the engineer may make
improvements, plans, designs, inventions, or other
records that may justify copyrights or patents, should
enter into a positive agreement regarding ownership.
d. Engineers’ designs, data, records, and notes referring
exclusively to an employer’s work are the employer’s
property. The employer should indemnify the engineer
for use of the information for any purpose other than the
original purpose.
e. Engineers shall continue their professional development
throughout their careers and should keep current in their
specialty fields by engaging in professional practice,
participating in continuing education courses, reading
in the technical literature, and attending professional
meetings and seminars.
Footnote 1 “Sustainable development” is the challenge of meeting
human needs for natural resources, industrial products, energy,
food, transportation, shelter, and effective waste management while
conserving and protecting environmental quality and the natural
resource base essential for future development.
“By order of the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia, former Section 11(c) of the NSPE
Code of Ethics prohibiting competitive bidding, and all
policy statements, opinions, rulings or other guidelines
interpreting its scope, have been rescinded as unlawfully
interfering with the legal right of engineers, protected
under the antitrust laws, to provide price information to
prospective clients; accordingly, nothing contained in the
NSPE Code of Ethics, policy statements, opinions, rulings
or other guidelines prohibits the submission of price
quotations or competitive bids for engineering services
at any time or in any amount.”
Statement by NSPE Executive Committee
In order to correct misunderstandings which have been
indicated in some instances since the issuance of the
Supreme Court decision and the entry of the Final Judgment,
it is noted that in its decision of April 25, 1978, the Supreme
Court of the United States declared: “The Sherman Act does
not require competitive bidding.”
It is further noted that as made clear in the Supreme Court
decision:
1. Engineers and firms may individually refuse to bid for
engineering services.
2. Clients are not required to seek bids for engineering
services.
3. Federal, state, and local laws governing procedures
to procure engineering services are not affected, and
remain in full force and effect.
4. State societies and local chapters are free to actively
and aggressively seek legislation for professional
selection and negotiation procedures by public
agencies.
5. State registration board rules of professional conduct,
including rules prohibiting competitive bidding for
engineering services, are not affected and remain in
full force and effect. State registration boards with
authority to adopt rules of professional conduct may
adopt rules governing procedures to obtain engineering
services.
6. As noted by the Supreme Court, “nothing in the
judgment prevents NSPE and its members from
attempting to influence governmental action . . .”
Note: In regard to the question of application of the Code to
corporations vis-a-vis real persons, business form or type should
not negate nor influence conformance of individuals to the Code.
The Code deals with professional services, which services must
be performed by real persons. Real persons in turn establish and
implement policies within business structures. The Code is clearly
written to apply to the Engineer, and it is incumbent on members
of NSPE to endeavor to live up to its provisions. This applies to all
pertinent sections of the Code.
1420 KING STREET • ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22314-2794 • 888-285-NSPE (6773) • LEGAL@NSPE.ORG • WWW.NSPE.ORG • PUBLICATION DATE AS REVISED JULY 2007 • PUBLICATION #1102
COPYRIGHT NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
Why Choose Us
- 100% non-plagiarized Papers
- 24/7 /365 Service Available
- Affordable Prices
- Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
- Will complete your papers in 6 hours
- On-time Delivery
- Money-back and Privacy guarantees
- Unlimited Amendments upon request
- Satisfaction guarantee
How it Works
- Click on the “Place Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
- Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
- Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
- Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
- From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.