2 Complete Guide: Ethics and Professionalism (ENCE 355)
Ethics and Professionalism - Professional and Social Engineering

ENCE 355 • Marks: 10

PROFESSIONAL AND SOCIAL ENGINEERING

Topic: Ethics and Professionalism

This material has been prepared on the basis of reference material kindly provided by Er. Shrutee Karna, WRC, Department of Civil Engineering. We gratefully acknowledge her contribution towards this resource.

CHAPTER 2: ETHICS AND PROFESSIONALISM (8 hours)

2.1 Ethics, Morality, and Professionalism

Ethics

Ethics refers to a set of principles and standards that guide human behavior in determining what is right or wrong. It is a branch of philosophy that examines moral values, duties, justice, fairness, honesty, and responsibility. Ethics provides a framework for making decisions and resolving conflicts in both personal and professional life.

Key Characteristics of Ethics:

  • Concerned with right and wrong behavior.
  • Provides guidelines for decision-making.
  • Based on principles such as honesty, fairness, integrity, and respect.
  • Can be applied to individuals, organizations, and professions.
  • Often formalized through codes of ethics in professions.

Examples:

  • Refusing to accept a bribe.
  • Reporting safety hazards at a construction site.
  • Treating all employees fairly regardless of background.

Morality

Morality refers to an individual’s personal beliefs, values, and judgments about what is right and wrong. Moral values are shaped by family, culture, religion, education, and life experiences. Unlike ethics, morality is more personal and internal.

Key Characteristics of Morality:

  • Based on personal conscience and values.
  • Influenced by culture, religion, and upbringing.
  • Helps individuals distinguish good from bad.
  • May vary between people and societies.
  • Guides personal behavior even when no rules exist.

Professionalism

Professionalism refers to the conduct, behavior, attitudes, and standards expected from members of a profession. It involves competence, responsibility, reliability, accountability, and commitment to quality service. Professionalism helps maintain public trust in a profession.

Characteristics of Professionalism:

  • Competence and expertise.
  • Accountability for actions.
  • Reliability and punctuality.
  • Respect for colleagues and clients.
  • Commitment to ethical standards.
  • Continuous learning and improvement.
  • Maintaining professional appearance and behavior.

Ethics vs Morality vs Professionalism

EthicsMoralityProfessionalism
A system of principles that determines what is right or wrong behavior in society or a profession.Personal beliefs and values about right and wrong developed through upbringing and experience.The conduct, behavior, skills, and standards expected from a member of a profession.
Derived from professional codes, laws, organizational policies, and social expectations.Derived from family, religion, culture, traditions, and personal conscience.Derived from professional institutions, workplace requirements, and industry standards.
Systematic and rule-based.Personal and value-based.Practical and performance oriented.
Fairness, justice, honesty, and responsibility.Good versus bad actions according to personal beliefs.Competence, accountability, quality work, and professional conduct.
Applies to both personal and professional situations.Mainly applies to personal life and individual decisions.Applies primarily to the workplace and professional activities.
Based on established principles and ethical frameworks.Based on individual conscience and beliefs.Based on professional standards and expected behavior.
Often enforced through codes of ethics, policies, and regulations.Self-enforced through personal conscience.Enforced through employers, professional bodies, and regulations.
Generally similar within a profession or organization.Can vary significantly among individuals and cultures.Usually standardized within a profession.
More objective because it follows accepted principles.More subjective because it depends on personal beliefs.Mostly objective because it follows professional standards.
Ethical sanctions, disciplinary actions, loss of trust.Feelings of guilt, social criticism, or personal conflict.Professional penalties, suspension, loss of license, or dismissal.
“What is the right thing to do?”“What do I believe is right or wrong?”“How should a competent professional behave?”
Refusing a bribe in a construction project.Feeling that lying is wrong regardless of consequences.Completing engineering work accurately and meeting deadlines.

2.2 Ethical Responsibilities Toward Sustainability and Safety

  • Ethical responsibility is the commitment to act morally and beneficially, going beyond legal obligations. It involves accountability — taking ownership of one’s actions and their consequences — transparency, and a commitment to fairness toward all stakeholders.
  • A company that is ethically responsible would not only follow environmental regulations but also actively seek ways to reduce its carbon footprint beyond the minimum requirements.
  • Sustainability ethics is about recognizing that our choices today affect the planet and people of the future. They are links in a chain, extending far beyond our line of sight, reaching into the lives of generations who will inherit the world we are shaping today.

Key Ethical Principles in Sustainability:

  • Intergenerational Responsibility: Temporal ethical responsibility asks us to consider the long-term well-being of the planet and its future inhabitants in our present decisions. Many Indigenous societies have long-standing traditions of stewardship, viewing themselves as caretakers of the earth for those yet to come.
  • Transparency and Avoiding Greenwashing: International ethics standards for sustainability assurance address critical risks such as bias, conflicts of interest, pressure to act unethically, fraud including greenwashing, non-compliance with laws and regulations, and threats to the independence of assurance practitioners. In other words, claiming to be “green” without evidence is considered an ethical violation.
  • Corporate Ethics and Sustainability: Today’s consumers value companies that uphold ethical standards, making ethics and sustainability critical for long-term success. Businesses can drive positive change while achieving profitability by adopting ethical practices, sustainability initiatives, and corporate social responsibility programs.
  • Social Responsibility: Sustainable practices promote ethical and socially responsible business behaviour, which can enhance an organization’s reputation and social impact. Key regulations and standards to be aware of include the Paris Agreement, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), ISO 14001, and the EU Green Deal — all of which outline requirements for mitigating environmental risks, promoting ethical practices, and achieving long-term sustainability goals.

Ethical responsibility in sustainability includes environmental stewardship (reducing waste, conserving energy, and protecting natural resources), fair labor practices (ensuring safe working conditions and fair wages), honest business dealings (being transparent in all transactions), and community engagement (contributing to the betterment of local communities).

From the design and construction of infrastructure to resource management and urban planning, civil engineers play a crucial role in creating a safer, more sustainable, and prosperous world. However, the great power that these professionals wield comes with great responsibility — to act ethically and responsibly at all times.

The effects of planning and building on the health, safety, and well-being of the community and the environment bear an enormous burden of responsibility on civil engineers. A total of 38% of CO₂ emissions worldwide can be traced back to the construction industry. Thus, planning and building in respect with nature and natural resources has become a topic of increasing importance in civil engineering.

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) is the primary professional body governing civil engineering ethics globally. The ASCE has recognized the importance of ethical standards for over a century and adopted a code of ethics in 1914. This code of ethics serves as a guiding framework for engineers and emphasizes the prioritization of public welfare and environmental stewardship over legal compliance. The first two sections of the ASCE code of ethics state: First and foremost, protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public and adhere to the principles of sustainable development.

The ASCE Code’s Core Ethical Duties on Sustainability
The ASCE Code of Ethics states that engineers shall:

  • Adhere to the principles of sustainable development.
  • Address environmental, social, and economic impacts, along with opportunities for improvement, in their work.
  • Mitigate adverse environmental, social, and economic effects.
  • Use resources wisely while minimizing resource depletion.

Ethical Responsibility Toward Safety in Civil Engineering

Safety is Paramount: Engineers have a profound impact on society. The code emphasizes the engineer’s responsibility to prioritize the safety, health, and welfare of the public in all their professional endeavors. This includes the design and construction of safe and sustainable infrastructure, and the responsible use of resources.

Safety Responsibilities: They must ensure that their projects comply with all safety standards and do not pose a risk to the life or health of people. Environmental protection requires civil engineering to consider the environmental impact of projects from the design phase. If an engineer observes that unethical practices are being carried out or that public safety or the environment is at risk, they have an obligation to report them to the relevant authorities.

Safety as an Ethical Duty: For every individual to be provided with a working environment that is safe and does not harm their physical or mental health is an essential part of an employer’s as well as the State’s responsibility. It is widely accepted by all stakeholders that employers share the responsibility of promoting and managing the health, safety, and wellbeing of their workers.

Workplace Safety and Social Sustainability: A safe and healthy workplace is a fundamental aspect of social responsibility, ensuring that employees are protected from both physical hazards and psychosocial risks such as stress, burnout, and workplace discrimination. By embedding social sustainability principles into their policies, organisations can not only improve quality of life for employees and communities, but also boost business resilience, productivity, and reputation.

ESG Framework and Worker Safety: Many organizations now understand that employee wellbeing is a critical part of their overall business approach to sustainability. Worker wellbeing is clearly linked to ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) frameworks used to reflect a company’s sustainability and ethical impact. The “Social” pillar of ESG assesses how an organization treats its employees, customers, suppliers, and communities, including its approach to diversity, inclusion, equity, human rights, health and safety, and employee wellbeing.

Safety and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Safety at work connects directly to the UN’s global goals. SDG targets call on nations to protect labour rights and promote safe and secure working environments for all workers, including migrant workers and those in precarious employment. Globally, in 11 out of 93 countries with available data, more than 10 work-related fatalities per 100,000 workers were reported. By recognizing the interconnectedness of the SDGs and workplace well-being, businesses can contribute significantly to global sustainability efforts while fostering a safer, more productive, and inclusive work environment. Embracing these principles is not just a corporate responsibility — it is an essential step towards achieving a sustainable and prosperous world for all.

Examples of Ethical Sustainability in Practice:

  • Ethical responsibility in sustainability includes environmental stewardship (reducing waste, conserving energy, and protecting natural resources), fair labor practices (ensuring safe working conditions and fair wages), honest business dealings (being transparent in all transactions), and community engagement (contributing to the betterment of local communities).
  • Ethical responsibility toward sustainability and safety requires professionals to prioritize human welfare, environmental protection, resource conservation, risk reduction, transparency, and long-term societal benefits. Sustainable development ensures that future generations inherit a healthy planet, while safety ethics ensure that people are protected from harm throughout the life cycle of engineering projects and infrastructure systems.

Pillars of the Engineering Code of Ethics
The code is built around several fundamental canons, each addressing a key aspect of professional conduct:

  • Public Welfare: Prioritizing the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
  • Competence: Practicing in areas of competence and continually improving professional knowledge.
  • Truth and Honesty: Being truthful and honest in all professional communications.
  • Accountability: Taking responsibility for one’s actions and decisions.
  • Sustainability: Promoting sustainable practices and protecting the environment.

Civil engineers have a leading role in planning, designing, building, and ensuring a sustainable future by providing the bridge between science and society. In this role, engineers must actively promote and participate in multidisciplinary teams with other professionals such as ecologists, economists, and sociologists, and work with the communities served and affected to effectively address the issues and challenges of sustainable development.

2.3 Code of Conduct and Professional Behavior

A Code of Conduct is a formal set of principles, rules, standards, and ethical guidelines that govern the behavior and decision-making of professionals within an organization or profession. It establishes expectations for integrity, accountability, responsibility, and ethical behavior.

A code of conduct helps:

  • Maintain public trust.
  • Promote ethical decision-making.
  • Ensure consistency in professional behavior.
  • Protect stakeholders and society.
  • Enhance organizational reputation.
  • Promote honesty and integrity.
  • Protect public health, safety, and welfare.
  • Prevent unethical practices.
  • Guide professionals in difficult situations.
  • Establish accountability and transparency.
  • Foster respect and fairness.
  • Maintain professional credibility.

Fundamental Principles of a Code of Conduct

  • Integrity
  • Accountability
  • Fairness
  • Professional Competence
  • Transparency
  • Impartiality
  • Compliance with Laws and Regulations
  • Environmental Responsibility
  • Professional Courtesy
  • Reliability and Dependability
  • Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
  • Respect for Human Rights
  • Commitment to Quality and Excellence
  • Sustainability
  • Accountability for Actions and Decisions
  • Honesty
  • Responsibility
  • Respect for Others
  • Confidentiality
  • Objectivity
  • Trustworthiness
  • Commitment to Public Safety and Welfare
  • Avoidance of Conflicts of Interest
  • Ethical Decision-Making
  • Continuous Professional Development
  • Teamwork and Collaboration
  • Protection of Organizational Assets
  • Social Responsibility
  • Leadership by Example
  • Maintaining Public Trust and Confidence

A profession is a vocation requiring specialized knowledge and often long and intensive academic preparation, governed by a code of ethics and dedicated to serving the public interest.

Characteristics of a Profession

CharacteristicDescription
Specialized KnowledgeRequires expert knowledge in a specific field.
Formal EducationRequires structured education and training.
Skill and CompetenceInvolves practical and technical expertise.
Code of EthicsMembers must follow ethical principles and standards.
Public ServiceAims to serve society and protect public welfare.
ResponsibilityProfessionals are accountable for their actions and decisions.
Continuous LearningRequires ongoing professional development.
Professional RecognitionOften regulated by professional bodies or licensing authorities.

Professional Behavior

Professional behavior refers to the attitudes, actions, conduct, and standards expected of an individual in a professional environment. It reflects competence, reliability, ethics, and respect for others.

  • Demonstrates accountability by taking responsibility for actions and decisions.
  • Maintains reliability by consistently fulfilling commitments and obligations.
  • Shows punctuality by respecting deadlines and schedules.
  • Exhibits competence through the effective application of knowledge and skills.
  • Practices integrity by acting honestly and ethically in all situations.
  • Demonstrates professionalism through appropriate conduct and appearance.
  • Communicates clearly, respectfully, and effectively with others.
  • Shows respect for colleagues, clients, and stakeholders.
  • Maintains confidentiality of sensitive and proprietary information.
  • Exercises ethical decision-making when facing professional challenges.
  • Displays objectivity by making decisions based on facts and evidence.
  • Works collaboratively and contributes positively to team goals.
  • Adapts to changing circumstances and workplace requirements.
  • Demonstrates leadership by setting a positive example for others.
  • Shows commitment to continuous learning and professional development.
  • Handles conflicts and disagreements professionally and respectfully.
  • Maintains fairness and impartiality in professional interactions.
  • Prioritizes safety, health, and public welfare in professional activities.
  • Demonstrates initiative by proactively identifying and solving problems.
  • Upholds organizational values, policies, and professional standards.
  • Accepts constructive feedback and uses it for self-improvement.
  • Maintains a positive attitude even under pressure or challenging conditions.
  • Demonstrates dependability by delivering quality work consistently.
  • Respects diversity and promotes an inclusive work environment.
  • Builds trust through honesty, transparency, and responsible behavior.

2.4 Responsibility, Liability and Negligence

Responsibility

This refers to the duty a professional has to perform their work correctly and ethically.

  • Personal responsibility – being accountable for your own decisions and actions.
  • Professional responsibility – obligations to clients, employers, the public, and the profession.
  • Collective responsibility – shared accountability within a team or organization.

Engineers are responsible for ensuring their designs, recommendations, and work meet required standards.

Liability

Liability is the legal obligation to compensate for harm or loss caused by one’s actions or inactions.

  • Civil liability – being sued for damages (e.g., a bridge collapse due to faulty design).
  • Criminal liability – facing criminal charges for gross misconduct or recklessness.
  • Strict liability – held responsible regardless of intent or care taken.
  • Vicarious liability – an employer being held liable for the actions of an employee.

Professionals can be held liable even when following orders if they knew the action was wrong.

Negligence

Negligence occurs when a professional fails to exercise the standard of care expected of a competent practitioner.

The four elements required to prove negligence are:

  • Duty of care – The professional owed a duty to the affected party.
  • Breach of duty – The professional failed to meet the expected standard.
  • Causation – The breach directly caused the harm.
  • Damage – Actual harm or loss resulted.

Types of Negligence:

  • Professional negligence (Malpractice) – Failure to meet industry standards.
  • Gross negligence – Extreme carelessness showing total disregard for others’ safety.
  • Contributory negligence – The victim also partially contributed to the harm.

Tort

A tort is a civil wrong committed by one person or entity against another, causing harm, injury, loss, or damage. The injured party has the right to seek compensation (damages) through a civil court.

Essential Elements of Tort

ElementDescription
Wrongful Act or OmissionA person does something wrong or fails to do something they should have done.
Legal DutyThe defendant owes a duty of care to the affected party.
Breach of DutyThe duty is violated through action or negligence.
Damage or InjuryActual loss, injury, or harm occurs.
Legal RemedyThe injured party can claim compensation.

Types of Tort

Type of TortDescriptionExample
NegligenceFailure to exercise reasonable careEngineer ignores safety checks causing bridge failure
NuisanceInterference with another’s enjoyment of propertyConstruction noise disturbing residents
DefamationHarm to a person’s reputationFalse allegations against an engineer
TrespassUnauthorized entry onto land/propertyContractor occupying private land without permission
Strict LiabilityLiability regardless of fault in certain situationsDamage caused by hazardous construction activities

Tort vs Negligence

BasisTortNegligence
DefinitionA civil wrong that causes harm and gives rise to legal liability.A specific type of tort involving failure to exercise reasonable care.
ScopeBroad concept covering many civil wrongs.Narrow concept; one category of tort.
NatureIncludes negligence, nuisance, trespass, defamation, etc.Only relates to careless acts or omissions.
DutyMay arise from various legal duties.Arises from a duty of care owed to others.
Fault RequiredNot always (e.g., strict liability).Requires breach of duty of care.
RelationshipParent category.Subcategory of tort.
ExampleTrespassing on private property.Engineer fails to inspect a bridge, leading to cracks.

2.5 Conflict of Interest, Corruption, and Whistleblowing

Conflict of Interest

A conflict of interest is a situation in which a person’s personal interests, financial benefits, relationships, or other external influences could interfere with, or appear to interfere with, their ability to make fair, impartial, and objective decisions while performing professional duties.

A conflict of interest does not necessarily mean that unethical behavior has occurred. Instead, it indicates that there is a risk that personal interests may improperly influence professional judgment. Therefore, conflicts should be identified, disclosed, and managed appropriately.

  • Occurs when personal interests compete with professional duties.
  • May be financial, personal, family-related, or professional.
  • Can reduce trust, transparency, and fairness.
  • May result in biased decisions.
  • Should be disclosed before decisions are made.
  • Can exist even if no improper action actually occurs.
  • Proper management helps maintain ethical standards.

Types of Conflict of Interest

TypeDescriptionExample
Actual Conflict of InterestA real conflict exists and directly influences decisions.An engineer awards a construction contract to a company owned by their spouse.
Potential Conflict of InterestA conflict could arise in the future if circumstances change.An engineer owns shares in a company likely to bid for an upcoming project.
Perceived (Apparent) Conflict of InterestOthers may reasonably believe a conflict exists, even if no improper action occurs.A project manager evaluates a proposal submitted by a close friend’s company.

Sources of Conflict of Interest

SourceDescription
1. Financial InterestsA conflict arises when a person has a financial stake (such as ownership of shares, investments, commissions, bonuses, or business interests) that could influence professional decisions. Financial gain may consciously or unconsciously affect impartial judgment.
2. Family Relationships (Nepotism)Conflict occurs when decisions involve close family members or relatives. Hiring, promoting, supervising, or awarding contracts to relatives can create favoritism and compromise fairness and objectivity.
3. Personal RelationshipsClose friendships, romantic relationships, or personal associations may influence professional decisions. Such relationships can result in biased evaluations, preferential treatment, or unfair advantages for certain individuals or organizations.
4. Outside Employment or Business ActivitiesHolding a second job, providing private consultancy, or owning a business while employed by another organization may create divided loyalties. Decisions made in one role may benefit the other role, reducing professional independence.
5. Gifts, Hospitality, and Other BenefitsAccepting valuable gifts, travel, entertainment, discounts, or other benefits from clients, contractors, or suppliers may create a sense of obligation and influence procurement, contract awards, inspections, or other professional decisions.
6. Confidential InformationProfessionals may have access to confidential or privileged information through their work. Using this information for personal, financial, or competitive advantage constitutes a conflict of interest and violates ethical and professional responsibilities.

Common Examples:

  • An engineer awarding a contract to a company owned by a family member.
  • A consultant recommending a product from which they personally benefit financially.
  • A manager hiring a friend over a more qualified candidate.
  • Accepting gifts or favors from clients or suppliers in exchange for favorable decisions.

How to Handle It:

  • Disclosure – Declare the conflict to the relevant authority immediately.
  • Recusal – Remove yourself from the decision-making process.
  • Transparency – Ensure all actions are open and documented.

Failure to manage conflicts of interest can lead to legal liability and loss of professional license.

Corruption

Corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. It undermines fairness, trust, and the integrity of professional practice.

Forms of Corruption:

  • Bribery – Offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting something of value to influence a decision.
  • Fraud – Deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
  • Embezzlement – Misappropriating funds entrusted to one’s care.
  • Extortion – Coercing someone to act in a certain way through threats or force.
  • Favoritism/Nepotism – Giving unfair preference to friends, family, or associates.
  • Collusion – Secret cooperation between parties to deceive or defraud others.

Effects of Corruption:

  • Undermines public trust in professionals and institutions.
  • Leads to poor quality work, unsafe structures, and public harm.
  • Results in criminal prosecution, fines, and imprisonment.
  • Damages the reputation of the entire profession.
  • Wastes public resources and distorts fair competition.

Prevention of Corruption:

  • Implementing strong codes of ethics and conduct.
  • Establishing transparent procurement and decision-making processes.
  • Enforcing strict penalties for corrupt behavior.
  • Promoting a culture of integrity and accountability within organizations.

Whistleblowing

Whistle-blowing is the act of reporting illegal, unethical, unsafe, fraudulent, or corrupt activities within an organization by an employee or other individual to someone who has the authority to take corrective action. The report may be made internally (within the organization) or externally (to regulatory authorities, law enforcement agencies, or the public when necessary).

The primary purpose of whistle-blowing is to protect the public interest, ensure accountability, maintain ethical standards, and prevent harm.

  • Reports unethical, illegal, or unsafe conduct.
  • Protects public health, safety, and the environment.
  • Promotes honesty, transparency, and accountability.
  • Can be done by employees, contractors, consultants, or other stakeholders.
  • May involve internal or external reporting.
  • Often protected by organizational policies or laws against retaliation.
  • Helps detect fraud, corruption, and professional misconduct.
TypeDescription
Internal Whistle-BlowingReporting unethical or illegal conduct to supervisors, managers, ethics committees, or other authorized officials within the same organization.
External Whistle-BlowingReporting misconduct to external bodies such as government regulators, professional councils, law enforcement agencies, courts, or the media when internal reporting is ineffective or inappropriate.

Others:

  • Open whistleblowing – The whistleblower openly identifies themselves when making the report.
  • Anonymous whistleblowing – The whistleblower conceals their identity to avoid retaliation.

When Should a Professional Whistleblow?

  • When public safety is at serious risk.
  • When illegal or fraudulent activities are taking place.
  • When internal reporting has failed or been ignored.
  • When there is clear evidence of corruption or gross misconduct.

Protection of Whistleblowers:

  • Many countries have whistleblower protection laws to shield reporters from retaliation.
  • Protections include safeguards against dismissal, demotion, harassment, and victimization.
  • Confidentiality of the whistleblower’s identity is often legally protected.
  • Professional bodies also provide ethical backing and support for whistleblowers.

Challenges Faced by Whistleblowers:

  • Fear of retaliation, job loss, or blacklisting.
  • Social pressure and isolation from colleagues.
  • Legal risks if disclosures are made improperly or without evidence.
  • Emotional stress and psychological burden of speaking out.
Illustrative Case

A civil engineer discovers that their company has been bribing government officials to win construction contracts, and that substandard materials are being used in a public hospital project.

  • There is a clear conflict of interest as the company prioritizes profit over public safety.
  • Corruption is evident through bribery and fraudulent use of materials.
  • The engineer has a professional and ethical duty to whistleblow, first internally, and if ignored, to the relevant regulatory authority.
  • The engineer is protected under whistleblower protection laws from unfair dismissal or retaliation.

2.6 Ethical Decision-Making and Case Studies

Ethical decision-making is the process of identifying a moral dilemma, weighing competing values and duties, and choosing a course of action that can be justified on principled grounds — not just legal, commercial, or convenient ones. It is a skill, not an instinct, and it can be learned and practiced.

The core challenge is that ethical dilemmas in engineering rarely pit an obviously right option against an obviously wrong one. They pit two legitimate-seeming values against each other:

  • client loyalty vs public safety,
  • schedule vs thoroughness,
  • team harmony vs honest reporting.

Nine-Step Ethical Decision-Making Process

  • Step 1: Identify the Ethical Problem
    • Clearly define the issue or dilemma.
    • Determine who is affected.
    • Identify conflicting values or interests.
    • Questions to ask: What is the ethical concern? Who may benefit or suffer? Is there any violation of professional ethics?
  • Step 2: Gather Relevant Facts
    • Collect all technical, legal, financial, and social information.
    • Avoid making decisions based on assumptions.
    • Questions to ask: What are the actual facts? What standards, regulations, or codes apply? What evidence is available?
  • Step 3: Identify Stakeholders
    • Determine everyone affected by the decision.
    • Possible stakeholders: Clients, engineers, contractors, government agencies, public users, future generations, environment.
  • Step 4: Review Professional Codes and Laws
    • Check applicable codes of conduct.
    • Examine legal obligations.
    • Consider organizational policies.
    • Questions: Does the action violate professional ethics? Is it legally acceptable?
  • Step 5: Generate Possible Alternatives
    • List all reasonable actions.
  • Step 6: Evaluate Consequences
    • Weigh each alternative against safety, sustainability, fairness, legality, and professionalism (see table below).
  • Step 7: Select the Most Ethical Option
    • Choose the option that protects public safety, complies with laws, respects professional ethics, and minimizes harm.
  • Step 8: Implement the Decision
    • Communicate clearly.
    • Document actions.
    • Follow organizational procedures.
  • Step 9: Reflect and Learn
    • Evaluate outcomes.
    • Improve future decision-making.
    • Update procedures if needed.

Step 6 in Detail: Evaluating Consequences

FactorQuestions
SafetyWill anyone be harmed?
SustainabilityDoes it affect future generations?
FairnessIs it just and unbiased?
LegalityDoes it comply with laws?
ProfessionalismDoes it uphold professional standards?

Major Theories of Ethics

TheoryMain IdeaQuestionExample
Consequentialism (Utilitarianism)Actions are judged by their outcomes.Which action produces the greatest good?Choosing a bridge design that benefits the largest number of people.
Deontology (Duty Ethics)Actions are judged by adherence to rules and duties.Is the action morally right regardless of outcome?Refusing to falsify survey data even if it helps complete a project faster.
Virtue EthicsFocuses on moral character and virtues.What would a good person do?An engineer acts honestly because integrity is a virtue.
Rights EthicsIndividuals possess fundamental rights that must be respected.Are people’s rights protected?Respecting citizens’ privacy when collecting data.
Justice and Fairness EthicsEmphasizes equality and fair treatment.Is the decision fair to everyone?Awarding contracts through transparent competitive bidding.
Ethics of CareFocuses on relationships, compassion, and responsibility toward others.How does the decision affect people and relationships?Ensuring worker welfare during project execution.
Common Good EthicsPromotes benefits for society as a whole.Does the decision improve community welfare?Developing public transportation systems that serve all citizens.
Environmental EthicsHumans have responsibilities toward nature and future generations.Does the decision protect the environment?Using sustainable construction materials.

Discussion Case Studies

Case: Cutting Corners on Safety Inspections

A newly graduated engineer joins a firm where it is common practice to cut corners on safety inspections to meet project deadlines. The culture of the workplace normalizes this behavior, and senior engineers encourage the new engineer to follow suit.

Questions:

  • How does workplace culture influence an individual’s ethical behavior?
  • Is it morally acceptable for the new engineer to follow the existing culture? Explain.
  • What does professionalism require of the new engineer in this situation?
  • How can the engineer maintain ethical standards while still fitting into the workplace?
  • What long-term consequences could arise if the practice of cutting corners continues unchecked?
Case: Illegal Dumping into a River

A chemical plant engineer discovers that waste from the plant is being illegally dumped into a nearby river, contaminating the water supply of a local community. The plant manager insists the dumping is a temporary measure until proper waste disposal facilities are built.

Questions:

  • What are the ethical responsibilities of the engineer regarding public safety and environmental protection?
  • Does the “temporary” justification by the manager make the dumping ethically acceptable? Explain.
  • What actions should the engineer take immediately upon discovering this practice?
  • How does this situation relate to the engineer’s responsibility toward sustainability?
  • What are the potential long-term consequences if the engineer chooses to remain silent?
Case: RCC Bridge Cracks After Six Months

A reinforced cement concrete (RCC) bridge was designed by a designer on behalf of a consultant and constructed by a reputed Class “A” contractor. After the completion of construction, the bridge was opened to traffic. After six months of operation, cracks appeared in the bridge. The Road Department formed a probe team, which found the design procedure was satisfactory, but the quality of the steel used had not been properly tested. The contractor claimed the work followed the engineer’s instructions and specifications, but there had been inadequate supervision by the consultant. The bridge had been designed for a load capacity of 20 tons, but vehicles exceeding 20 tons regularly used it. It was also noted that the consultant and the contractor were close friends.

Question: As a member of the probe team, what would be your judgment regarding the failure of this bridge? Discuss the responsibilities and ethical accountability of the designer, consultant, contractor, engineer, road department, and vehicle operators.

Case: Fake Engineering Degrees

Several engineers from different disciplines were arrested on charges of producing and possessing fake engineering degrees and certifications. They had studied in recognized engineering colleges and attended classes regularly but had failed a few semester examinations. Unable to overcome the failed results, they decided to obtain fake degrees and certifications. Before their arrest, they were employed in reputed companies and had demonstrated recognizable performance.

Question: How do you judge the behavior/actions of these arrested engineers considering their background? What suggestions would you provide to prevent such situations from occurring again in society?

Case: Unpaid Laborers Beat the Sub-Contractor

Sub-contractor Mr. A was severely beaten by his laborers because he had not paid them for more than seven months. Investigation revealed the client had not paid the contractor, and the contractor had not paid the subcontractor. The client did not pay because the consultant had not submitted the necessary bill report. The consultant claimed the work was defective and did not meet specified standards, while the contractor disagreed, alleging the consultant was seeking personal financial gain.

Question: Discuss the case with reference to the applicable principles of contract law, tort law, liability, negligence, and professional responsibility. Identify the responsibilities and potential liabilities of the client, consultant, contractor, subcontractor, and laborers, and suggest appropriate legal and ethical remedies.

Case: The 1907 Quebec Bridge Collapse

The 1907 Quebec Bridge collapsed during construction, killing 75 workers. The chief engineer had received reports from inspectors warning of deformed chord members but chose to continue.

Question: Discuss how a clear code of professional conduct could have changed the outcome, and what obligations it would have imposed on the engineers involved.

Case: Stamping Drawings Prepared by an Unlicensed Technician

You are a licensed civil engineer asked to stamp drawings for a foundation design that was prepared by an unlicensed technician working under you. You have reviewed the drawings and believe them to be correct.

Question: Is this ethical? What does the code of conduct say about this practice, and what conditions must be met?

Case: The 1981 Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse

In 1981, the Hyatt Regency hotel walkways in Kansas City collapsed, killing 114 people. Engineers approved a change to the rod-to-beam connection verbally, without reviewing the structural implications.

Question: With reference to this case, explain the difference between legal liability and moral responsibility in civil engineering practice, and discuss how both apply to the engineers involved. Separately: a contractor offers you tickets to an international sporting event as a “thank you” for your professionalism on a recent project — explain the ethical issues and what you should do, with reference to corruption and conflict of interest.

Document Preview

CHAPTER 2 RELATED CASES (Solved / Hinted)

The following case studies have been collected by Er. Arun Prasad Parajuli (NEC Reg. No: 2269 Civil ‘A’), Associate Professor / Former Head, Department of Civil Engineering, Sagarmatha Engineering College, Sanepa, Lalitpur, Nepal; Former Vice Principal (Admin.), Sagarmatha Engineering College / Sagarmatha College of Science and Technology, Sanepa, Lalitpur, Nepal. We gratefully acknowledge his contribution towards this resource.

Solved Case Studies

Case No. 1: The Process Plant Design (Er. A and Company XYZ)

Engineer ‘A’ was appointed by company ‘XYZ’ to design a process plant and to test it for full production. Er. ‘A’ gained the full trust of the company by assuring his capability. As work proceeded, Er. ‘A’ couldn’t complete his task in proper time due to insufficient drawings. Numerous adjustments were noticed after the operating equipment were installed, and even the flow estimated by Er. ‘A’ couldn’t be achieved. He revised his design to achieve his goal, but the revision required the purchase of additional equipment, straining the plant’s economics. Company ‘XYZ’ then made a complaint, and a formal hearing confirmed that Er. ‘A’ and his company had not displayed the promised competency.

Assumptions: The contractor was hired by company ‘XYZ’ solely on the basis of the tender system; the process plant provided by the company was novel.

Analysis: XYZ hired a capable engineer through the necessary examination and aptitude tests, but Er. A failed to show the competency he promised. Er. A shouldn’t have given XYZ a chance to complain about his work — if he wasn’t capable, he should have mentioned this to the company at the time of hiring. Er. A had provided a complete design, but the contractor didn’t understand the design and lacked the skills to interpret it, and failed to employ skilled manpower to assist in the work progress. Er. A didn’t show the professionalism and maturity required in a large project like this — he should have worked in small iterations, reviewing and redesigning regularly, which would have minimized the economic stress to XYZ. XYZ, in turn, didn’t perform sufficient risk, financial, and time analysis before designing the entire process plant; a vigorous preliminary study should have been done. XYZ did provide Er. A with enough time and resources for adjusting and revising his designs, and was flexible throughout the project, yet the desired result still wasn’t achieved. Er. A revised his designs time and again and made adjustments without violating the fundamental canons of engineering — he was in favor of gaining a good response from XYZ by giving a good result, but he didn’t pay much attention to proper research and study; he could have used simulators for testing during the initial stage to reduce the need for redesigning.

Decision: As the fundamental canon of engineering ethics states, “Engineers shall perform services only in the areas of their competence” — Er. A should not have taken the job if he wasn’t competent for it. However, since the project itself was novel, there was minimal prior idea about the perfect approach to achieve the best outcome, so even with careful planning it wasn’t possible to entirely predict the project’s course. Er. A tried his best to achieve the projected output through several improved designs and enhancements, so he can’t be held completely responsible for the overall losses of the company.

Case No. 2: Hari’s Triple Role (Municipal Engineer, Consultant, Planning Board Member)

Hari is a municipal engineer and a member of the Regional Planning Board. He also engages in a part-time consulting practice. As a consulting engineer, he prepared the plans for a subdivision development. As a municipal engineer, he recommended approval of his own plans to the Regional Planning Board. As a member of the Regional Planning Board, he voted to approve these plans.

Assumptions: Hari receives remuneration from all three parties; he has not informed the municipality that he is working as a consultant drafting the plan proposed by the municipality; he used confidential information regarding the selection criteria as a municipal engineer; and he exerted some influence to get his plans approved by the majority in the planning board.

Analysis: Hari has not informed either party of his involvement with the other, which brings into question his ability to act as a faithful agent to all three parties. If Hari performs his duties in all posts with honesty and discretion, directed towards the welfare of the mass, his actions could be partly justified despite the conflict of interest. However, ethically, a professional should not accept remuneration from more than one interested party for services pertaining to the same work without the consent of all interested parties — and Hari is receiving payment from all three parties for the approval of his own plan. Many professionals do hold multiple posts, and there is a need for experienced, qualified professionals in engineering, so receiving compensation for expertise is not inherently controversial. But Hari is in a position, by virtue of his post as municipal engineer, to use confidential information about the approval criteria to his own advantage, and he has used his authority as a planning board member to vote for his own plan and potentially influence other members.

Decision: Hari violated engineering ethics by holding three different, conflicting posts on the same project — drafting the plan as a consultant, recommending it as a municipal engineer, and voting for it as a member of the Regional Planning Board. This directly violates the code of ethics and is morally incorrect, though the analysis notes that professionals by nature often struggle to strike the correct balance between the authority and responsibility that comes with their posts.

Case No. 3: The Chemical Storage Tank Leakage

An industry using chemicals in making a product had a leakage in its storage tank. Er. X came to know about the leakage and informed the boss. The boss requested Er. X to be silent and hinted that his job would be gone if he told others.

Assumption: No harm has been caused till now.

Analysis — Against reporting: Though there is a leakage, there are no human casualties and hence no short-term effects, so one might keep the matter private to avoid losing the job. Analysis — For reporting: Though there are no short-term effects, there could be long-term harm; a professional should be willing to go to the media or court and inform of the threat rather than protect their own job.

Decision: A professional must choose to safeguard the wellbeing of people and the environment, giving priority to others rather than himself — the matter of the leakage should be brought into the light, benefiting everyone. Note: reporting risks violating the code of confidentiality (acting as a faithful agent/trustee of the employer), while staying silent risks violating the duty to have proper regard for the health, safety and welfare of the public — along with the duties to be honest and fair, to avoid dual compensation without consent, and to only accept assignments within one’s competence.

Case No. 4: Hotel Yak & Yeti Collapse (Extension Without Structural Check)

The Hotel Yak & Yeti, a three-storied building designed by civil engineer Albert, was extended by two additional storeys in 2003 AD on the decision of owner Mr. Anil Agrawal, who appointed Architect Rabi for the design; the design was approved by Kathmandu Municipality. During construction the building collapsed, causing 70 deaths and 200 injuries. An investigation found that the structural members of the previous construction couldn’t carry the additional load.

Assumptions: Construction proceeded on the basis of Architect Rabi’s design; the civil structural engineer provided structural specification and documentation; the hotel owner had not told Er. Albert about the extension plan during the original design; the contractor finished construction as per the design specification.

Analysis: Persons/organizations involved: Civil Engineer Mr. Albert, Hotel Owner Mr. Anil Agrawal, the Contractor, Architect Mr. Rabi, and Kathmandu Municipality. Of these, three are found negligent through breach of “duty of care”: (1) Hotel Owner — should have consulted the original structural documentation or the previous civil engineer to assess feasibility before extending, and should have evacuated the hotel during construction. (2) Architect Rabi — his design was approved by the Municipality, but he should have examined the previous design in detail before initiating the new design, or consulted a structural engineer if he lacked concrete structural ideas. (3) Kathmandu Municipality — approved the design to support tourism, but it is the Municipality’s duty to check submitted designs for construction feasibility, investigate through selected structural professionals, and periodically cross-check construction against the submitted design.

Decision: All three suspects were found negligent and should share liability: the hotel owner must bear a minimum of 50% of the compensation; the municipality should bear about 45%; and Architect Rabi should bear a maximum of 5%. The reimbursement recommended: full free treatment for the injured; Rs. 10 lakhs compensation for the loss of each life; and no compensation for the destruction of the hotel itself, since the owner caused it.

Case No. 5: Slippery Floor Injury (Mr. Suri and Mr. Gautam)

Mr. Suri, an Electrical Engineer, and Mr. Gautam, a Mechanical Engineer, visited an under-construction building site to inspect machinery and wiring. They both slipped on the floor, sustaining serious injury. It was revealed the floor wasn’t constructed as per design and specification, making it slippery. The flooring work was subcontracted to Mr. Jha on Mr. Suri’s recommendation — Mr. Jha being Suri’s old friend.

Assumption: Mr. Jha was Suri’s friend or relative.

Analysis — For (liability of Jha/contractor): Mr. Jha, the contractor, and the company he works for are most liable; Mr. Jha, recommended by Suri, may have been favored due to their friendship; it is also the contractor’s responsibility to put up warning signs around the slippery floor. The subcontracting company was negligent in hiring Mr. Jha purely on Suri’s recommendation, and took the recommendation from an electrical engineer rather than a civil engineer. Against (contributory factors): Mr. Suri and Mr. Gautam should have been careful while walking on an under-construction site; Mr. Suri is also partially liable for recommending his friend/relative; and the design/specification not being followed shows the designer failed to give appropriate instructions to Mr. Jha.

Decision: Liability is shared between the contractor (Mr. Jha) for faulty construction and possible favoritism, the subcontracting company for negligent hiring, and partly the injured engineers themselves and Mr. Suri for the recommendation and inadequate caution.

Case No. 6: Designing on Unsuitable Soil for an Undisclosed Purpose

A client approached a designer to design a multistoried building. The soil type was found unsuitable for that type of structure. The designer hesitated, and the client then revealed that he actually did not intend to build the structure but wanted to use the money for another business purpose.

Analysis: Engineering is a profession acquired through specialized training, and professionals use their knowledge and skill for the benefit of people and society; their work is therefore subject to public evaluation and cannot remain a purely personal matter. A designer must visit the site, assess everything readily apparent that could affect the design, and ascertain the nature and load-bearing capacity of the soil. In this case, the soil is already known to be unsuitable. The client’s intention (whether or not he plans to actually build) does not matter to the designer’s professional duty — a designer’s main duty is to prepare a design that is technically feasible on the ground; a non-feasible or non-economical design amounts to negligence or incompetence. If neither negligence nor incompetence is the case, and the designer proceeds purely to fulfil the client’s intention, the designer’s behavior becomes unethical and immoral, subject to disciplinary or public reputational consequences. A designer’s duty also continues after completion, to check that the design works in practice and to correct any errors that emerge.

Decision: As the soil type is already known to be unsuitable at the early design stage, the designer should not be involved in designing that structure.

Case Studies with Solution Hints

1. The Hazardous Chemical Leak and the Silencing Boss

A factory was using a chemical in making a product. The storage tank of the chemical waste, hazardous to health and environment, had a leakage. During inspection, Er. A came to know of the leakage, which might cause an adverse impact on the health and hygiene of the surroundings. He informed his boss about the event. Considering possible social objection, the boss requests him to be silent, hinting he may lose his job if the case reaches social reformers. If you were the engineer, what would you do? Discuss.

Solution Hints:

  • Engineering, more than any other profession, involves social experimentation — a single engineer’s decision affects the safety of countless lives, so engineers must remember their first obligation is to ensure public safety.
  • Engineering is a profession acquired through specialized training; because professionals use their knowledge and skill for the benefit of people and society, their work cannot remain a personal matter and is subject to public evaluation.
  • Professional engineers shall have proper regard in all their work for the safety and welfare of all persons and for the physical environment affected by their work.
  • Fundamental ethical values of the code of ethics, universal in practice, include protection of life and safeguarding people, and sustainable management and care for the environment.
  • Professionals committing unethical/immoral acts are subject to disciplinary action, if not institutionally (as in Nepal) then by the public, and their public image becomes very low.
  • With reference to the above, the engineer should be ready to quit the job, but should not stay silent on a matter hazardous to the public and the environment.
2. Best Friend Supplying Material and Community Pressure to Quit

You are appointed as a consulting engineer in a project where your best friend is supplying material. The community people know this fact and ask you to quit the job because you cannot control the quality of the material. How do you cope with this situation? Discuss the ethical aspects.

Solution Hints:

  • Professionals are bound by a code of ethics — they are not free to act as they desire; personal and professional behavior is controlled by the code of ethics prepared by professional associations/societies.
  • Professional engineers shall act for their clients or employers as faithful agents or trustees, and also independently, with fairness and justice to all participants.
  • With reference to the above, one option is to convince the community that regardless of who supplies the material, its quality will always be thoroughly checked, verified, tested, and measured against specifications. If the community remains unconvinced, out of respect for one’s professional standing, one should quit the job.
3. The Bheri River Suspension Bridge Collapse (Surkhet, 2007)

A trial suspension bridge over the Bheri River at Shubhaghat near Mehalkuna bazaar, Surkhet district, collapsed on 25th December 2007 while a large crowd (500–600 people) were crossing to attend a local fair, claiming about 18 lives with around 70 persons missing. The 187-metre span bridge was completed in FY 2063/64 (2006/07), constructed by DDC-Surkhet, supervised by DTO-Surkhet, with FACE Consultant, Kathmandu, as consultant and DC Nirwan Sewa, Nepalgunj, as contractor; fabrication was by Hulas Steel Industries, Samara. Preliminary investigations indicated the bridge failed due to faulty bulldog grips on the main cables — the DTO technician had allegedly instructed the contractor to tighten the nuts of the bulldog grips, but the Fair Management Committee chairperson stated the contractor had not done so. How would you judge the incident from the standpoint of professional ethics?

Solution Hints: On the ground of professional ethics, responsibility falls in this order:

  • Consultant: Professional engineers shall have proper regard in all their work for the safety and welfare of all persons and for the physical environment affected by their work; the consultant should have thoroughly verified/supervised/checked all constructional activities and instructed the contractor to rectify faulty work immediately, or stopped works instantly — this does not seem to have happened.
  • Supervisor (DTO): Since professional practices concern public safety and welfare and are subject to public evaluation, the supervising office seems to have been unaware of the bulldog-grip nut problem in time.
  • Contractor: Should have followed the instruction to tighten the nuts of the bulldog grips immediately, but this action seems to have been lacking.
  • Owner: Having knowledge of a technical/design fault in the bridge’s construction, the owner should not have opened the bridge to the public until rectifications were completed.
4. Diluted Concrete Mix Ratio to Cover Entertainment Expenses

Er. Satyaman Shrestha was a project engineer in a road project in Chitwan; Er. Ramesh Thapa, his close friend, was a site engineer for a construction company in the same project. After noticing the concrete mix ratio was not as per design (1:2:4), Satyaman complained and was told by Ramesh that the diluted ratios (1:6 mortar, 1:3:6 concrete) were still safe and were simply a means to cover overhead entertainment and other financial benefits; Ramesh asked Satyaman to stay silent and assured he would be responsible for any consequences. How would you judge the roles of Satyaman and Ramesh on ethical grounds?

Solution Hints — Role of Ramesh:

  • An engineer will not attempt to injure falsely or maliciously the professional reputation, prospects, or practice of another engineer.
  • Engineers should practice their work within their realm of expertise, in a fair and ethical manner, placing the good of society above personal gain.
  • A professional engineer shall not engage in activities or accept remuneration that may create a conflict of interest with clients or employers, without the knowledge and consent of those clients/employers.
  • With reference to the above, Ramesh fails to do so and his act is unethical and immoral.

Solution Hints — Role of Satyaman:

  • If an engineer has proof that another engineer has been unethical, illegal, or unfair in practice, he should advise the proper authority.
  • Engineers should practice within their realm of expertise, fairly and ethically, placing the good of society above personal gain.
  • Regarding this scenario, Satyaman should advise and request Ramesh to be ethical and practice his authority properly.
5. Preparing a Running Bill in Exchange for Payment

As a consultant’s supervising engineer, the contractor requests you to prepare his running bill of works done, assuring a handsome payment for your work since his own engineer recently quit. How should you respond? Write five most important rules of conduct for a professional engineer per the code of ethics prevalent in Nepal.

Solution Hints:

  • A professional engineer shall not engage in activities or accept remuneration for services that may create a conflict of interest with clients or employers, without the knowledge and consent of those clients/employers.
  • Professional engineers shall act for their clients or employers as faithful agents or trustees, and also act independently, with fairness and justice to all participants.
  • With reference to the above, one should not prepare the running bill for the contractor — doing so would be against the code of ethics, immoral, and potentially liable.
  • Five most important rules of conduct: Public safety and welfare; Competence and knowledge; Sealing and signing; Faithful agent and trustee; Conflict of interest.
6. Slippery Floor Injury (Mr. Shyam Lal and Mr. Ram Lal)

Consultant engineers Mr. Shyam Lal and Mr. Ram Lal fell on the floor of a building during an inspection visit while it was under construction, causing serious injury. Investigation revealed the floor was not constructed as per design and specification, making it slippery. The flooring work was subcontracted to Mr. Hari on Mr. Shyam Lal’s recommendation. Who is to blame? Give reasons.

Solution Hints: Mr. Shyam Lal should take responsibility, with reference to:

  • Professional engineers shall have proper regard in all their work for the safety and welfare of all persons and for the physical environment affected by their work.
  • Lack of proper inspection and supervision.
  • A professional engineer shall not engage in activities or accept remuneration for services that may create a conflict of interest with clients or employers, without the knowledge and consent of those clients/employers.
7. RCC Bridge Cracks (Design Load vs Actual Traffic)

An RCC bridge, designed by a designer on behalf of a consultant and constructed by a reputed Class “A” contractor, developed cracks six months after opening to traffic. A probe team found the design procedure okay, but the steel material used had not been duly tested; the contractor argued the construction followed the engineer’s instructions and specification, though workmanship was found not as per specification, and there was also a lack of proper supervision by the consultant. The bridge’s design load was 20 tons, but vehicles exceeding 20 tons regularly used it, and the consultant was a good friend of the contractor. Being a member of the probe team, what is your judgment?

Solution Hints: Major responsibility must be taken by both the consultant and the contractor:

  • Professional engineers shall have proper regard in all their work for the safety and welfare of all persons — the consultant should have thoroughly verified/supervised/checked every aspect of construction and instructed rectification of faulty work immediately, or stopped works instantly; this does not seem to have happened.
  • The contractor should have followed the detailed specification instructions regarding workmanship and other necessary details.
  • Professional practices are concerned with public safety and welfare and are subject to public evaluation.
8. Accessing a Colleague’s Confidential Salary File

Engineer Ramesh Shrestha, working with a contractor on a mega construction project, was given responsibility to control quality of work on site. The construction company maintained confidentiality of employee incentives and salaries. One day, while waiting in the office of executive engineer Sudhir (who was absent), Ramesh went through Sudhir’s computer and opened the entire confidential incentives file. Sudhir was unhappy with Ramesh for this act. How do you judge Ramesh’s conduct? How should Sudhir react?

Solution Hints: Ramesh’s conduct was unethical and immoral; Sudhir should respond seriously and guide Ramesh regarding ethical practice, with reference to:

  • A professional engineer shall take care that credit for engineering work is given to those directly responsible for it.
  • An engineer will not attempt to injure falsely or maliciously the professional reputation, prospects, or practice of another engineer.
  • An engineer should give due regard to all professional aspects of the engagement.
  • A professional engineer will not review the work of another engineer for the same client except with the knowledge of such engineer.
  • An engineer shall not disclose confidential information without the consent of their clients or employers, unless withholding it is contrary to the safety of the public.
9. Friend’s Dinner Invitation and Shared Guesthouse

You are an engineer from a consulting firm in Pokhara. Your friend Mr. Ram, a project engineer for the contractor on the same project, invites you to dinner every Friday and requests you to share the guesthouse for your accommodation. What would you do? Prepare a case study based on the code of ethics, making supplementary assumptions if necessary.

Solution Hints: Reject the offer and invitation, with reference to:

  • A professional engineer shall not engage in activities or accept remuneration for services that may create a conflict of interest with clients or employers, without the knowledge and consent of those clients/employers.
  • Professional engineers shall act for their clients or employers as faithful agents or trustees, and also independently, with fairness and justice to all participants.
10. Substandard Sand and Aggregate with a Cost-Sharing Offer

Er. Narendra Shah, working with a contractor on a housing complex project in Kathmandu, was given responsibility to control quality of work on site. Material supplier Ramchandra, a friend of Narendra’s, was facing supply difficulty due to road blockades and strikes; slightly substandard sand and aggregate were available nearby. Ramchandra convinced Narendra that the concrete strength would still meet specification even with the substandard materials, and offered to share 50% of the cost saved. How do you judge the conduct of Narendra and Ramchandra on ethical grounds? (IOE 2066)

Solution Hints: Narendra’s conduct was unethical and immoral for being convinced on technical matters and for the cost-sharing arrangement, which would also breach the code of ethics, with reference to:

  • A professional engineer shall not engage in activities or accept remuneration for services that may create a conflict of interest with clients or employers, without the knowledge and consent of those clients/employers.
  • Professional engineers shall act for their clients or employers as faithful agents or trustees, and also independently, with fairness and justice to all participants.
  • Professional practices are concerned with public safety and welfare and are subject to public evaluation.
  • Ramchandra’s approach and behavior are more unethical still, reflecting a lack of concern for public safety and welfare; if he is an engineer, his conduct can be dealt with per the code of ethics as unprofessional and unethical.
11. Building Under Construction on a Flood-Prone Riverbank

During a quality control visit in a remote village, it was found that a building under construction (about 20% complete) on the bank of a river will be damaged due to flood. The survey was done by your friend with the consent of local people, and the quality of construction was as per specification. Your job is limited to controlling the quality of the building only. Discuss the case and recommend your views on whether to continue construction. (2067)

Solution Hints:

  • Recommend stopping the construction despite the work following specifications — a building on a vulnerable riverbank is always at risk of damage or being washed away; money should not be a prime factor compared to human life and safety, even though 20% of the work is already complete.
  • The friend/surveyor should not have designed the building in such a vulnerable area, and should have convinced the public of the possibility and scale of potential damage, despite their consent — the surveyor is expected to know the river’s flow pattern and flood characteristics better than the village people, and should be aware of their professional code of conduct and liabilities.
  • Professional practices are concerned with public safety, welfare of all persons, and the physical environment affected by their work, and are also subject to public evaluation.

Case Studies — Document Preview

Scroll to Top