Ethics chpt 9

EXAM QUESTION

Q.Which of the following are Ethical Theories studied in the literature:

a. Locke’s Rights, a correct choice is one that doesn’t infringe on anyone’s basic rights.
b. Mike’s Formalism, a correct choice is one in which each person follows an ethical route
c. Big Daddy’s Duty Ethics, a correct choice is one in which each person follows an ethical route.
d. Mill’s Utilitarianism, a correct choice is one that provides the least benefit to most of the people.
 

ANSWER: The correct answer is Locke’s Rights, a. Some may believe that Mill’s is correct; however, the statement is wrong and should be the “max benefit to most of the people”. Also answers b and c have incorrect names associated with them.

 RED HOT EXAM TIP: Often times it is best to start by eliminating answers - a good technique to have in your arsenal.

Explanation: Here are the evaluations of each option:

a. Locke’s Rights

✔ Yes — This is a real ethical theory.
John Locke is known for Rights Theory, where ethical choices must not infringe on basic human rights (life, liberty, property).
The description is mostly correct.

---

b. Mike’s Formalism

✘ No — Not a real ethical theory.
There is Kant’s Formalism (or Kantian Duty Ethics), but “Mike’s Formalism” is not studied in ethics.

---

c. Big Daddy’s Duty Ethics

✘ No — Not a real ethical theory.
There is Duty Ethics—mainly associated with Immanuel Kant—but “Big Daddy’s Duty Ethics” is not an academic term.

---

d. Mill’s Utilitarianism

✘ No  — This is a real ethical theory.
John Stuart Mill is a major figure in Utilitarianism.
But the description in the question is incorrect:
Utilitarianism aims for the greatest good (benefit) for the greatest number, not the least benefit.

ANSWER: The correct answer is Locke’s Rights, a. Some may believe that Mill’s is correct; however, the statement is wrong and should be the “max benefit to most of the people”.

Final Answer

The ethical theories actually studied in the literature are:
✅ a. Locke’s Rights

F-13: Low Bid on Feasibility Study

Statement of the Case: Engineer A was one of several consultants asked to submit proposals for

a feasibility study for a deep-water bulk-loading facility on the client’s site. To increase the

chances of getting the assignment, Engineer A submitted a proposal with a very low fee, which

was about half the realistic fee for the work. The reasoning behind the low fee was that the

consultant who got the feasibility study would be better placed to win the subsequent—and far more lucrative—design competition (providing, of course, that the client decided to go ahead

with the proposed facility).

Engineer A won the contract for the feasibility study and found that the study required far more

time and expense than originally envisioned. The contract payments covered only about 40

percent of the actual costs. However, the most depressing part was that Engineer A’s study

revealed that

 soil conditions would require very deep piles to support the massive quay-side equipment;

 railway links and highway connections were far from the site;

 the harbour did not have enough depth for bulk carriers without dredging; and

 prevailing winds and wave action would cause constant problems for ships waiting to moor.

In other words, it really was not economically feasible to construct the bulk-loading facility on

the site, and Engineer A’s final report explained this fact. Engineer A had spent several months

on a project that had cost money to complete.

----------------------------------------------

Feasible: “Feasible” means something is possible and practical to do, given the available conditions.

---

Simple definition

Feasible = doable in reality, not just in theory

---

In engineering context

A solution is feasible if it:

• Can be built or implemented

• Meets technical requirements

• Is within budget and time constraints

• Complies with regulations

---

Examples

✔️ Feasible

• A drainage system that:

  • Fits the site conditions

  • Meets design standards

  • Can be constructed with available materials

👉 Practical and achievable

---

❌ Not feasible

• A design that:

  • Requires unavailable technology

  • Costs far beyond the budget

  • Violates site constraints (e.g., no infiltration allowed)

👉 Theoretically possible, but not realistic

---

In plain terms

“Feasible” means you can actually make it happen in the real world.

---

Common engineering usage

• Technically feasible → works from an engineering standpoint

• Economically feasible → affordable

• Operationally feasible → can function in practice

---

Quick exam tip

If you see:

• “Not feasible” → think constraints prevent implementation

• “Feasible alternative” → think practical solution within limits

Question: Was Engineer A’s behaviour ethical?

Authors’ Comments: This practice is unethical. The submission of low bids, in hopes of

landing a bigger contract later, should be strongly discouraged. The main reason is that this

gamble affects the engineer’s judgment of the feasibility of the project. In other words, the

engineer has an interest in seeing that the project is feasible; otherwise, no second contract will

occur. This clearly creates a conflict of interest. In fact, to avoid biased conclusions in a

feasibility study, clients often require that the successful consultant for a feasibility study be

excluded as a consultant for the subsequent project.

Moreover, low bidding is a poor business decision: the professional engineer is gambling on two

events: 

• that the project will be feasible, and 
• that the engineer will win the design contract. 

If either event does not occur, the engineer suffers a financial loss, since the costs and profit for the

feasibility study cannot be recovered from the later work. 

Every Code of Ethics requires professional engineers and geoscientists to insist on appropriate and adequate compensation for their work.

Explain: Every Code of Ethics requires professional engineers and geoscientists to insist on appropriate and adequate compensation for their work.

This statement is about professional responsibility—not greed or profit. It’s often misunderstood, so let’s clarify it properly.

---

Core meaning

Engineers are ethically required to ensure they are paid fairly and adequately for their professional work.

---

Why this is an ethical requirement

Codes of ethics (e.g., Professional Engineers Ontario and similar regulators) include this because:

1) Protects quality of work

If an engineer accepts too little compensation:

• They may not have enough time/resources

• This can lead to cut corners, rushed analysis, or errors

👉 That can compromise public safety

---

2) Maintains professional standards

Underpricing services can:

• Undermine the profession

• Create a “race to the bottom”

👉 Ethical duty = uphold dignity and value of the profession

---

3) Prevents conflicts and pressure

If compensation is inadequate:

• Engineers may feel pressure to:

  • Approve unsafe work

  • Skip proper review

  • Please clients to secure future work

👉 Fair compensation supports independent judgment

---

4) Reflects responsibility and liability

Engineers:

• Take on legal liability

• Make decisions affecting public safety

👉 Compensation should reflect that level of responsibility

---

What “appropriate and adequate” means

• Not excessive or exploitative

• Not underpaid or unsustainable

• Reasonable for the scope, risk, and effort

---

Example

❌ Unethical situation

An engineer agrees to design a complex stormwater system for a very low fee:

• No time for proper modeling

• No peer review

👉 Risk to public → ethical issue

---

✔️ Ethical situation

Engineer negotiates a fee that:

• Covers proper analysis

• Allows time for review and compliance

👉 Protects both client and public

---

In plain terms

Engineers must charge enough to do the job properly, safely, and professionally.

---

Important exam insight (NPPE)

If you see:

• “Low fee” + “complex work”
  👉 Think: Risk to quality → ethical concern

If you see:

• “Engineer insisted on fair compensation”
  👉 Usually correct ethical behavior

---

Bottom line

This rule exists because:

Good engineering requires adequate resources—and inadequate fees can lead to unsafe outcomes.

F-1: Toxic Spill

Statement of the Case: Engineer A was Chief Engineer of a plant that processed raw ore. The

refining process involved several dangerous chemicals, which were re-captured and recirculated;

however, careful operation was essential to prevent these chemicals from escaping

into the wastewater. Engineer A worked alongside the Operations Manager, and both of them

reported to the Plant Director. Engineer A was responsible for technical matters, such as design,

maintenance, and safety. The Operations Manager was responsible for hiring, scheduling, and

meeting production targets. Both the Operations Manager and the Plant Director were older than

Engineer A, but neither was a Professional Engineer nor a Professional Geoscientist.

During the first few months on the job, Engineer A reviewed, updated, and improved the plant

Operating Manual prepared by the previous Chief Engineer. Engineer A ensured that copies of

the manual were available to the plant operating staff and personally conducted several training

sessions for key operating staff. In spite of these efforts, however, Engineer A observed many

infractions of the Operating Manual throughout the plant, and he could see that the toxic

chemicals were possibly escaping into the wastewater. Engineer A considered this lax attitude

toward safety to be very risky. Tests of the wastewater effluent showed wide variations of the

escaping chemicals, with concentrations that occasionally reached the legal limits. On several

occasions, Engineer A initiated disciplinary measures against operating staff, but these were

dealt with lightly by the Operations Manager, for whom the staff worked. Engineer A eventually

came to understand that the Operations Manager put production ahead of safety and was casual

about enforcing the safety provisions in the Operating Manual.

Finally, Engineer A warned the Operations Manager about these unsafe practices in writing and

demanded that infractions be disciplined more severely. As a last resort, Engineer A went

directly to the Plant Director and explained the problem, but the Director simply said, “Work it

out among yourselves.”

Question: If you were Engineer A, what would you do at this point?

Outcome: Engineer A was unhappy with this lack of leadership, but felt that he had reported the

problem up the “chain of command” so the problem was no longer his responsibility. A few

weeks later, while the plant was operating at maximum capacity, local news media carried

reports of a devastating fish-kill in a neighbouring creek and poisoned birds in a downstream

marsh. An investigation, carried out by scientists from a government ministry, placed the blame

clearly on the lax operating procedures in the plant. The ministry charged the company and

Engineer A with violations of environmental regulations. A rancher, who had to pipe safe water

to his livestock, sued the company and Engineer A for damages. A lengthy series of legal and

disciplinary actions followed.

Authors’ Comments: Obviously, Engineer A tried to do a good job by updating and distributing

the Operating Manual, by educating staff, and by informing the Operations Manager and the

Plant Director of hazards. However, when they failed to respond adequately, the responsibility

then fell back on the engineer, as the only technically competent professional, to insist that the

plant personnel follow adequate safety measures. In a difficult situation such as this, Engineer A should have informed the Plant Director that unsafe practices were unacceptable, and if the Plant
Director refused to co-operate, Engineer A should have consulted the Association for guidance.
If a solution still could not be found, Engineer A should have reported the unsafe practices to the
appropriate ministry.
When senior management refuses to act on clear dangers to the public or to the environment,
professionals cannot defend themselves by saying they were “only following orders.” As
professionals, engineers and geoscientists are usually the ultimate authority in the industrial
workplace and must insist on protecting the environment and the public when, in their
professional opinions, hazards are likely to cause injury or damage. Failure to do so can lead to
disciplinary action; every Code of Ethics requires the practitioner to put public safety first.

F-2: Mine Safety

Statement of the Case: Engineer A, the Chief Engineer for a long-established mine, engaged

Geoscientist B to study the mine operations and to devise more efficient methods for extracting

ore from the old mine. During a site inspection, the geoscientist travelled down the shaft into the

drifts (tunnels) which led to the ore face. During this detailed tour of the mine, Geoscientist B

observed many infractions of safety provisions: methane detectors were missing from the deepest

parts of the mine; ventilation was poor in many areas of the mine; shoring was old and appeared

to be deteriorating; thick dust covered equipment and could have been a source of dangerous

dust explosions. Although Geoscientist B had not been hired to examine mine safety, the

geoscientist nevertheless mentioned these concerns to Engineer A, who agreed that safety was a

major worry. Engineer A explained that several proposals for safety improvements had been

made over the years, but the senior mine management had rejected them, citing the marginal

profitability of the mine and the fact that costly changes could cause the mine to close.

Question: If you were Engineer A or Geoscientist B, what would you do at this point?

Outcome: Geoscientist B stated that a professional should not condone such unsafe practices by

ignoring them and suggested that a combined, direct warning to the mine management might be

more convincing than the engineer’s previous safety proposals. Engineer A agreed, and they

made up a list of the most essential safety measures. The warning on mine safety was prepared as

a chapter in the geoscientist’s report on ore extraction. Engineer A and Geoscientist B cited the

Westray mine disaster, which killed 26 miners, and they quoted sections from the Westray

inquiry, showing similarities with the Westray practices. They also explained that the possibility

of injury or death because of the dangerous mine conditions was a far more serious financial risk

than the potential of mine closure.

Geoscientist B presented the report to senior management, and Engineer A supported the safety

warning and emphasized that safety measures need to be taken whether the mine’s productivity

justified them or not. After a brief discussion of the report, the senior management agreed to all

of the proposed safety measures, saying that they simply had been unaware of the seriousness of

the situation.

Authors’ Comments: This example is typical of many cases where the initiative of Professional
Engineers and Professional Geoscientists, and their commitment to the public welfare, as stated
in the Code of Ethics, has resulted in safer and more productive workplaces.

[Infraction- a violation or infringement of a law or agreement.

Ore - a natural aggregation of one or more minerals that can be mined, processed, and sold at a profit.]

F-3: Sliding Retaining Wall

 Statement of the Case: Engineer A had several years’ experience in the design of water and
sewer systems and municipal streets, but had no experience in the design of retaining walls. A
client, who was building a large lake-view house on the lower slopes of a hill, asked Engineer A
to design a retaining wall 3 m high and 50 m long to provide a flat lawn area in front of the
house. Engineer A accepted the assignment, even though he had never designed a retaining wall
before. His university education, some 20 years earlier, had touched briefly on the topic of
retaining wall design, so Engineer A consulted the concrete design textbook used in that course
and took dimensions, bar size, and spacing from a diagram in the textbook. He then produced

drawings and specifications for the client, who hired a contractor to build the wall.

Question: Was this effort adequate for a professional engineer?

Outcome: Soon after construction, the wall’s foundation failed by sliding. In the investigation
that followed, it was revealed that Engineer A had performed no foundation investigation. At the
very least, he should have drilled a few hand-auger holes and performed soil classification to
estimate bearing resistance, compressibility, and so on. He made no checks for sliding and made
no provision in the design to resist sliding. He did not consult any current codes, but simply
copied the old textbook design. Moreover, the textbook diagram illustrated structural aspects
only, not foundation details, and the textbook stated this fact. The client launched a successful
lawsuit. Engineer A was also disciplined under the provincial professional engineering Act.

Authors’ Comments: Competence is the result of education and experience. Although Engineer A was competent in his established field, he was not competent in the area for which his client

was paying, and while he made a minimal attempt to learn about the topic, his knowledge was

superficial. An engineer or geoscientist need not be an expert in every phase of a proposed

project before accepting it; however, a professional must be sufficiently familiar with the subject

to know that he or she can become competent through study or research in a reasonable period of

time, or that a colleague or consultant can be hired, without delaying the project, at reasonable

expense. The key point is that the professional’s lack of competence must not put the client’s

project at risk.

F-5: Study of Forest Road-Building

 Statement of the Case: Engineer A, an experienced civil engineer, was engaged by an

environmental advocacy organization to provide a report on past road-building practice by a

major forest company, in a forested area where cutting ceased in the late 1970s. He found many

examples of road-building practice that, over the past 25 years, had led to serious erosion.

Engineer A photographed and described these obsolete practices in his report, to illustrate what

damage they can cause and why they must be avoided. The environmental advocacy organization

used the report in a submission to government, urging tighter enforcement of road-building

regulations.

Engineer A then wrote an article for a national magazine in which he castigated the government

and the forest company and called on readers to mount a “write-in” campaign. He also implied

that the forest company might still be using these poor road-building practices. Engineer A later

stated that he believed that this “hard-hitting” approach would help to get the article published.

In the magazine article, Engineer A acknowledged the assistance he received from the logging superintendent of the forest company, but did not mention that the environmental advocacy

organization had financed his study.

A reporter on a local weekly newspaper read the magazine article and wrote a “rehash” of the

article. That is, the reporter wrote a newspaper story, based on the article, but implying that the

story was the result of a personal interview—a questionable journalistic practice. In the

newspaper story, the facts were simplified and made even a little more “hard-hitting.” The

reporter pretended to quote Engineer A as saying that the forest company’s unacceptable roadbuilding

practice was “still widespread throughout the province.” Before publication, the reporter

phoned Engineer A, to justify the claim that the story was an interview. The reporter explained

that she had written the story from the magazine article, but it was too long to read over the

telephone. She gave a rough verbal outline. Engineer A said he was satisfied with the story,

which then appeared in the next issue of the newspaper.

The forest company, after reading the magazine article and the newspaper story, felt that they cooperated

with a constructive attempt to study and improve road-building practices, but they had,

instead, been misled and defamed. They complained to the provincial Association and asked the

Association to discipline Engineer A.

Question: Should Engineer A be disciplined? If so, on what basis?

Outcome: The Association investigated and charged Engineer A with unprofessional conduct on the basis that he had expressed an opinion on a professional subject not founded upon “adequate

knowledge and honest conviction.” This is contrary to the provincial Association’s Code of

Ethics. In a disciplinary hearing, Engineer A was found guilty of unprofessional conduct and

given a reprimand.

Authors’ Comments: Clearly, the actions of Engineer A were less than professional.

His first

report, funded by the environmental advocacy organization, was an objective study of roadbuilding

practices; however, he was later guilty of three unprofessional acts:

First, in the magazine article, he negligently (or deliberately) stated that the poor roadbuilding

methods he had observed were still in use by the forest company—a professional

opinion not founded upon “adequate knowledge and honest conviction.”

 Second, in the magazine article, Engineer A acknowledged the assistance of the logging

superintendent, but omitted to say that the environmental organization provided the funding.

This omission could be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to conceal a potential bias.

 Finally, he permitted the newspaper reporter to produce an inaccurate story. He should have

insisted on more than just a telephone interview; in fact, since the reporter had already

written the story, Engineer A should have insisted on reading it (easily sent by fax or

Internet). Although professional journalists hate delays, they usually want to get the facts

correct.

Engineer A’s actions showed a disregard for the damage (or potential damage) that his public

pronouncements might have caused to the forest company, and he failed to mitigate the damage

by retracting or correcting erroneous statements.

[Note: Explain: In the magazine article, Engineer A acknowledged the assistance of the logging

superintendent, but omitted to say that the environmental organization provided the funding.

This omission could be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to conceal a potential bias.

The paragraph is pointing out a potential ethical concern about incomplete disclosure.

Here’s the breakdown:

• Engineer A did acknowledge one contributor (the logging superintendent), which shows some level of transparency.

• However, Engineer A did not disclose that an environmental organization funded the work.

• Funding sources are important because they can influence (or appear to influence) the conclusions or tone of an article.

Why this matters:

• If readers knew the environmental organization funded the work, they might interpret the article differently (e.g., suspecting bias toward environmental protection).

• By omitting that funding source, Engineer A may appear to be hiding a conflict of interest.

Key idea:

Even if the work itself is technically sound, failing to disclose relevant financial support can undermine credibility.

In simple terms:

The paragraph is saying:

Engineer A mentioned some help, but left out who paid for the work—and that makes it look like they might be hiding bias.

Ethical principle involved:

This relates to transparency and conflict of interest disclosure, which are core obligations in engineering ethics (e.g., under Professional Engineers Ontario or similar bodies).]

F-4: Concrete Bridge Design

 Statement of the Case: Engineer A, who recently moved to British Columbia from Ontario,

learned from a classmate at a reunion that a mining company needed a design for a bridge over a

creek, near a mine in the mountains. Engineer A had designed a single-lane timber logging

bridge over a creek in northwestern Ontario but had no other bridge experience. He approached

the mining company, stated that he had extensive experience in bridge engineering, and

eventually received the contract for the design. The site was at the base of a steep slope, and the creek was full of rocky debris. No flow records were available for the creek, so Engineer A

determined the span and clearance based on the creek’s high-water marks. He felt that the site

was adequate and did not arrange for geotechnical investigation or advice. He designed a

standard concrete box-girder bridge with a 15 m span and pile-driven abutments. A building

contract was also hired. The contractor was familiar with mine construction and mechanical

plants, but had no experience in bridges. Nevertheless, the construction went smoothly. The

bridge served well for five years, but a debris torrent during a particularly rainy winter season

destroyed the bridge in the sixth year.

Question: Did Engineer A act ethically in this project?

Outcome: The mining company regretted the loss of an expensive bridge, particularly because

the loss interrupted mine operations for months. The company hired an experienced bridge

engineer as a consultant to investigate the reasons for the bridge failure. The consultant noted the

debris in the creek and concluded that it was likely deposited by torrents. This design constraint

should have been satisfied by relocating the bridge site, providing a debris basin, increasing the

vertical clearance, and/or by altering the design in other ways. The mining company complained

to the Association, seeking disciplinary action against Engineer A.

Authors’ Comments: Engineer A clearly misrepresented his qualifications to his client. He had,

in fact, minimal bridge experience, and none of that was in the mountains. In this way, he was

not acting in good faith with the client, as required by the Code of Ethics. 

A more serious error, however, is that he did not have adequate knowledge of the type of structure he undertook to design (a key principle in almost every Code of Ethics), and he failed to seek help and guidance to protect the interests of the client. 

An engineer or geoscientist need not be an expert in every phase of a proposed project before accepting it, but must become competent through study or

research, in a reasonable time. 

Alternatively, a consultant can provide advice. The client’s project must not be put at risk because of the engineer’s lack of knowledge. In this case, Engineer A should simply have engaged a consultant to provide geotechnical advice.

F-6: Misleading Gold Report

Statement of the Case: Geoscientist A wrote a report on a gold prospect for a junior resource

company active on the Vancouver Stock Exchange (VSE). The report was intended to be a

factual history of the numerous test results at a specific site, including drill locations, summaries

of drill logs, and assay results. Geoscientist A used accurate numerical data in the report, but

added a few subjective adjectives. One example, among several similar statements in the report,

was this: “Assays on samples recovered from drill holes 6–14 revealed a very respectable 0.01

ounces of gold per tonne average, with some samples as rich as 0.03 ounces per tonne.”

After the report became public, the company’s share price rose sharply on the VSE. However, no

gold mine was constructed on the site, and the share price eventually dropped to a very low

value. Many shareholders, who had purchased shares at high values, now found the shares

almost worthless.

[Assay:the testing of a metal or ore to determine its ingredients and quality:

• "submission of plate for assay"]

Question: Were these statements by Geoscientist A professionally acceptable?

Outcome: The shareholders complained to the VSE and to the provincial Association that the

report written by Geoscientist A was misleading and demanded some disciplinary action, on the

basis that Geoscientist A’s use of the subjective adjectives constituted a personal opinion that

gave an inflated impression of the value of the property.

Authors’ Comments: Geoscientist A should not have used such subjective expressions as “very

respectable” or “rich” to describe the significance of the numerical data. Although Geoscientist

A summarized the data accurately, adding these subjective modifiers might have altered the

interpretation of the data by others. Such comments likely would not satisfy the requirements in

National Instrument 43-101, which came into effect on February 1, 2001. Geologists must follow

this document when disclosing information on mineral projects in Canada. The document

specifies the format for making oral statements or written disclosure of scientific or technical

information to the public concerning mineral projects. (See Chapter 2 of the text for a full

explanation.)

Whether deliberately or inadvertently, Geoscientist A did not follow accepted practice and

neglected the duty to the public, as required by the Code of Ethics. The Association would likely

feel obliged to take some action on such a complaint, but the complaint might easily be resolved

before reaching the disciplinary hearing stage, depending on the geoscientist’s explanation and

previous record. 

F-7: Commissioning of Sewage Plant

 Statement of the Case: A consulting engineering company was awarded the contract for

designing, preparing the specifications, and providing “field inspection services” (monitoring the

construction) of a sewage treatment plant being built for a small municipality. The construction

proceeded routinely to completion. The consulting company employed Engineer A, an environmental engineer experienced in wastewater treatment, to assist in the field inspection.

During the final commissioning of the plant, Engineer A observed that the biochemical oxygen

demand (BOD) of the effluent was frequently above the acceptable limit.

Engineer A contacted the design office at his engineering company, and after reviewing the case

with an environmental consultant, he soon realized that the plant had been designed for average

flows, but several food-processing industries in the municipality occasionally fed “slugs” of raw

sewage to the plant. The biochemical oxygen demand would increase rapidly when one of these

slugs arrived and would remain above the regulated limit for a few days, before moving back

down below the limit.

Engineer A concluded that, on days when these slugs were being

processed, the plant would not meet the effluent quality standards. The specifications had been

set by the engineering company’s design office, which had used the average sewage flow

estimates. He faced a serious decision, and identified three courses of action. Should he

 disclose this deficiency to the municipality (the client), thus implicating the engineering

company (his employer) as responsible for the inadequate design, or

 selectively sample the plant effluent between slug discharges, thus falsifying the true nature

of the problem, or

 provide “average” readings in his commissioning report, which might be a defensible

compromise?

Question: What should Engineer A do, in this situation?

Outcome: Engineer A concluded that he must act as a faithful agent of the client, even if it

created problems for the engineering company employing him. He met with engineers from the

municipality and explained that the sewage plant was unlikely to pass the commissioning tests

because of the “slug” discharge problem. The municipality was unaware of this problem and

immediately requested an explanation from the food-processing industries. After a lengthy

negotiation, the industries agreed to make structural changes to piping that would make the

sewage flow more constant and to build an “equalization” basin upstream from the sewage plant,

where the slug flows would blend with other flows, thus providing a much more constant sewage

flow, which the plant could process. The municipality contributed the land, the engineering

company agreed to design the equalization basin as a public service, and the industries agreed to

an increased mill rate to cover construction and maintenance costs for the basin.

Authors’ Comments: Truth was essential. The truth would have become obvious, eventually,

and a lawsuit would have followed. Professionals always prefer solutions to lawsuits.

F-8: “Low-Ball” Cost Estimate

 Statement of the Case: Engineer A was a member of an ad-hoc citizens’ committee, which

wanted the municipality to build a small recreation centre in their neighbourhood. The ad-hoc

committee believed that the Municipal Council would not approve the project if they knew the

true estimated cost. Engineer A volunteered to prepare a “low-ball” estimate for constructing the

recreation centre, at about 60 percent of the realistic likely cost, and the ad-hoc committee

formally presented this estimate to the Council. The committee presented Engineer A as an

independent and impartial consultant. There was no information in the documents submitted to show that Engineer A resided in the neighbourhood or was, in fact, a member of the ad-hoc

committee making the proposal.

Question: Did Engineer A act ethically in this project?

Outcome: The Municipal Council accepted the cost estimate, because a Professional Engineer

had prepared it. After a short debate, the Council approved the design phase of the project

without seeking another cost estimate. When the design was completed and tenders called, the

true cost of the project became apparent, but the public expected the project to go ahead; the

Council worried that there might be political repercussions if the recreation centre project were

cancelled. Moreover, they had already paid the design costs for the project. Council continued

the project and constructed the recreation centre.

However, upon inquiring, Council members soon learned that Engineer A was a resident of the

area and a member of the ad-hoc committee. On the advice of legal counsel, the Municipal

Council voted to ask the provincial Association to discipline Engineer A for failing to reveal a

conflict of interest in preparing and submitting the original cost estimate.

Authors’ Comments: Although Engineer A may have believed that it was a public service to

use deception to construct the recreation centre, the engineer made two serious errors. Failing to

reveal a conflict of interest is a clear violation of every Code of Ethics. Moreover, giving a

deliberately incorrect cost estimate to induce someone to do something is a serious offence,

punishable by civil or criminal proceedings, depending on the circumstances. Engineer A should

have provided a realistic and honest cost estimate, and relied on the merits of the project to

convince Council.

F-10: Poor Inspection of Remote Site

Statement of Case: An equipment dealer was developing a new depot (warehouse) in a small

town. A large architecture/engineering firm from a distant city designed the building for the

depot. Engineer A was Project Manager for the firm. Engineer B, a sole practitioner, lived in the

small town and offered her services to Engineer A, to perform site inspection. She said that her

office was close to the site, and she could easily serve as a resident engineer. Although the

project was large, Engineer A declined Engineer B’s offer because there was not enough money

in the fixed-sum contract to cover the costs of a resident engineer. Instead, Engineer A intended

to make short visits to the site, every second week, on a regular basis.

The depot building was to be built of concrete block, with a partial second storey for offices.

There was some structural steel in travellers and roof trusses. The foundation for the walls was a

strip footing, about 1.2 m below grade. When the contractor excavated for the footing, the

ground was uneven, and the contractor poured one side of the strip footing on exposed,

thoroughly frozen ground. This work was done while Engineer A was absent from the site and

backfilled before his next visit. Engineer B observed how the pouring had been done and

reported it to Engineer A. She again offered her services, offering to reduce the cost by attending

the site only at critical stages, on short notice from the contractor, when these critical events

occurred between Engineer A’s visits. Engineer A again declined and took no action with respect

to her report of poor workmanship in the footing construction.

Question: Was Engineer A acting in a professional manner by attempting to monitor and inspect

a project from a distant location?

Outcome: Shortly after occupancy, the building began to settle, where footings had been poured

on frozen ground. Expensive underpinning was necessary to rehabilitate the structure. The

lawyer for the equipment dealer initiated a lawsuit against the architecture/engineering firm, and

against Engineer A, to recover the costs of the underpinning. 

Authors’ Comments: By failing to monitor the footing construction—a key stage in any

structural project—Engineer A did not provide an adequate level of field service and, therefore,

did not act as a faithful agent of his client. 

Since the project was large, Engineer A should have included full-time inspection when fees were negotiated with the client.

If Engineer A was not successful in obtaining adequate fees for field services, he should have informed the client in writing of the risks associated with inadequate inspection. 

The Code of Ethics requires full disclosure of the consequences when key technical decisions are overruled.

If the client refused to fund the recommended inspections, Engineer A should have scheduled the inspections for critical stages, such as footing excavation, placement of re-bar, and concrete mixing and

placement, rather than fixed dates. Alternatively, he should have arranged with Engineer B to

make some of these inspections. Engineer B acted very professionally by informing Engineer A that the footings were poured on frozen ground, but Engineer A compounded the problem by ignoring it. He should have made a special site visit to investigate and should have required the footings to be replaced. Site inspection is extremely important. Many structural failures are the result of low-quality

materials, poor construction methods, or sloppy work that is easily remedied in the early stages

of construction. Full field services and inspection provide confidence and guarantee good

quality, thus justifying the investment.

F-11: Conflict of Interest in Building Inspection

 Statement of the Case: Engineer A is the only civil engineer in a small town in a remote area of
Canada; the other engineers in the area are all mining engineers. Engineer A has a broad
background, including sewer and water, roads, bridges, structural design, and building
construction and inspection. His wife owns four commercial buildings in the downtown area. On
a sunny day last summer, a major earthquake shook the town and caused widespread damage.
Although there were no deaths, several people were injured, and several of the largest and oldest
commercial buildings suffered significant cracking and settlement. Many buildings were built of

unreinforced masonry, and a few had obvious cracks. Immediate structural inspection was

essential before authorities could allow people to re-enter the buildings to live and work.

The Town Administrator asked Engineer A to undertake a contract for immediate structural

inspection of the damaged buildings. Engineer A declined. He explained that his wife owned

four of the buildings requiring inspection, and it would be a clear conflict of interest if he were to

inspect his wife’s property. The Town Engineer asked whether Engineer A would skip her

property and just inspect the buildings owned by others. Engineer A again declined, saying that

if he condemned any of the buildings, he would still have a perceived conflict of interest, since

his wife was in competition with other owners for tenants. Moreover, in this crisis he should

assist his wife to rehabilitate her buildings and could not place her behind other owners in a

similar situation.

The Town Administrator stressed the emergency nature of the situation. He pointed out that

outside help was unavailable because of poor road conditions and also because other engineers

were busy, dealing with other communities that were similarly affected.

Question: Does Engineer A have a conflict of interest? What should he do?

Outcome: Engineer A agreed to do the work and, indeed, found he had to condemn two of his

wife’s buildings and five others. An aftershock that occurred a few days later damaged all seven

of these buildings, thus confirming his judgments.

Authors’ Comments: Engineer A behaved correctly and honourably by trying to avoid an

assignment that would put him into a conflict of interest; however, when the Town Administrator

advised him that other engineers were unavailable during a time of crisis, Engineer A put the

public welfare first, as required by every Code of Ethics. Having disclosed his conflict of

interest, he undertook the work.

Engineers and geoscientists can usually avoid a conflict of interest simply by refusing an

assignment or by withdrawing if a conflict of interest arises. In this case, Engineer A could not

avoid the conflict of interest, but promptly disclosed it. When a conflict of interest is created by unavoidable circumstances, disclosing it is usually an adequate action on the part of the

professional. By disclosing an unavoidable conflict of interest, the engineer or geoscientist

invites scrutiny, so that others can satisfy themselves that the work is proceeding objectively and

honestly.

F-9: Conflict of Interest in Curb & Gutter Project

 Statement of the Case: Engineer A was a civil engineer in one of four private practices in a

medium-sized town in a rural area of the province. A nearby village awarded her a design

contract for several kilometres of curb and gutter on the main street, including extension of the

existing storm sewer. The contract involved four stages: designing the modifications, preparing

construction specifications, evaluating the contractors’ bids, and providing field inspection

services during the construction. Engineer A undertook the design and prepared the contract

documents.

Statement of the Case: Engineer A was a civil engineer in one of four private practices in a

medium-sized town in a rural area of the province. A nearby village awarded her a design

contract for several kilometres of curb and gutter on the main street, including extension of the

existing storm sewer. The contract involved four stages: designing the modifications, preparing

construction specifications, evaluating the contractors’ bids, and providing field inspection

services during the construction. Engineer A undertook the design and prepared the contract

documents.

Questions: Did Engineer A have a conflict of interest in this case? Was her conduct

professional?

Outcome: The Clerk asked the mayor to convene a meeting of the Village Council. The Council

found the process was irregular, but agreed to it (after some debate). Engineer B was hired to

review the bids. Engineer A’s construction company was the successful bidder, and the company

proceeded to construct the curb, gutters, and sewer extension that Engineer A had, herself,

designed. Engineer B provided the field inspection services during the construction. Engineer A

received no further design or construction contracts from the village.

Authors’ Comments: A client typically hires the consulting engineer to design the project and

to monitor the construction by an independent contractor. This usually creates a three-way

relationship between the client (owner), the consultant (engineer), and the contractor (builder).

The client needs the unbiased advice of the consultant to ensure that the work of the contractor is

adequate. In this case, Engineer A first became the consultant, but at the midpoint of her

contract, she switched to being the contractor.

Although her conduct was unprofessional, the facts (as presented here) likely would not qualify

as misconduct. Engineer A created the appearance of a conflict of interest by having her

construction company bid on the work she had, herself, designed. A devious person writing

specifications could easily provide a small advantage to a specific contractor, thus putting other

bidders at a disadvantage. Fortunately, she revealed her financial interest in the construction

company and did not compound her error by remaining silent. Disclosing a conflict of interest

reduces the ethical problems, but it is better to avoid the conflict of interest in the first place

Conversely, if Engineer A had concealed her interest in the construction company and had

served as inspector for the work produced by her own company, she would certainly be subject

to disciplinary action for concealing a serious conflict of interest.

Engineer A could have avoided the conflict by picking either the design consultancy or the

construction. She should have known whether her construction company would want to bid on

the project, and she should have decided which was the best business decision, and picked one or

the other, but not both. By picking both (in sequence), after she herself had prepared the

specifications, she opened herself to criticism for conflict of interest. In fact, a perceived conflict

of interest would likely remain in the public’s mind and might perhaps explain why she received

no further contracts from the village.

Although this case ended without a dispute, Engineer A failed to fulfill the terms of the original

contract. The Village Council would be entitled to claim from her any additional costs resulting

from the breach of contract. (Presumably, additional costs were involved when Engineer B was

hired.)

A Related Note: Nothing prevents businesses from vertical integration or “design-build”

contracts. Conflict arises when the client expects the consultant (designer) and the contractor

(builder) to be at “arm’s-length,” but they are not. In a design-build agreement, for example, the

contractor negotiates (or bids on) a contract with the owner, which requires the contractor to

carry out a design and then build to that design—all in one contract. Where there is one

competition for one contract, there is no conflict. In design-build arrangements, the client might

engage a second consultant to monitor the work of the contractor and give impartial advice.

Explanation:

This paragraph is making a nuanced ethics distinction:
👉 Something can be wrong (unprofessional), but still not serious enough to be formal misconduct.

Let’s unpack it clearly.

---

1) “Unprofessional” vs “Misconduct”

• Unprofessional conduct = poor judgment, bad practice

• Misconduct = serious breach that can lead to discipline

👉 Here, Engineer A’s behavior is questionable, but not severe enough (based on the given facts) to trigger discipline.

---

2) What Engineer A did wrong

She:

• Designed a project

• Then had her own construction company bid on it

👉 This creates a conflict of interest (or at least the appearance of one)

---

3) Why this is a problem

Even if she acted fairly, the risk is:

• She could write specifications in a way that subtly favors her company

• Other bidders could be unfairly disadvantaged

The key issue is not proven cheating —
it’s that the situation makes bias possible and believable

---

4) “Appearance of conflict of interest”

This is very important in ethics.

👉 Even if no wrongdoing occurs:

• If it looks suspicious → it undermines trust

Engineers must avoid not only:

• Actual conflicts
  but also

• Perceived conflicts

---

5) What she did right

She disclosed her financial interest

That means:

• She did not hide the conflict

• Others were aware and could judge accordingly

👉 This is why it likely does NOT rise to misconduct

---

6) Why disclosure is not enough

The paragraph emphasizes:

“Disclosing reduces the ethical problem, but avoiding it is better”

Because:

• Disclosure = transparency

• But the risk of bias still exists

---

7) Ethical principle

Under standards like Professional Engineers Ontario:

Engineers must:

• Avoid conflicts of interest where possible

• Fully disclose them if unavoidable

👉 Best practice = avoid + disclose
👉 Minimum acceptable = at least disclose

---

8) Simple interpretation

Engineer A put herself in a questionable situation (designing and bidding),
but because she was transparent about it, it’s considered poor judgment—not serious misconduct.

---

9) Exam insight (very important)

This is a classic NPPE pattern:

Situation	Outcome
Conflict + hidden	❌ Misconduct
Conflict + disclosed	⚠️ Unprofessional but acceptable
No conflict	✅ Ideal

---

Bottom line

• She shouldn’t have created the conflict

• But since she openly disclosed it, she avoided crossing into disciplinary misconduct

-------------------------------------

Explain: Arm's Length: “Arm’s length” means a relationship where the parties are independent, impartial, and not influenced by personal or financial ties.

---

Simple definition

An arm’s length relationship = no close connection, no hidden interest, no bias.

---

In engineering ethics

An engineer must act at arm’s length when:

• Making decisions

• Awarding contracts

• Providing professional opinions

👉 This ensures fairness and objectivity

For example, under Professional Engineers Ontario expectations:

• Engineers must avoid situations where their judgment could be influenced by self-interest or relationships

---

Example

✔️ Arm’s length

• You design a project

• An unrelated contractor bids on it

• You evaluate fairly

👉 No personal connection → objective

---

❌ Not arm’s length

• You design a project

• Your own company (or friend’s company) bids

👉 Now your judgment may be biased → conflict of interest

---

Why it matters

If a situation is not at arm’s length:

• It can create conflict of interest

• It may be seen as unfair or unethical

• It can undermine public trust

---

In plain terms

“Arm’s length” means keeping a professional distance so your decisions stay fair and unbiased.

---

Exam shortcut (NPPE)

If you see:

• Family, own company, financial interest
  👉 Not arm’s length → potential conflict

If you see:

• Independent parties
  👉 Arm’s length → acceptable

F-12: Maintaining Confidentiality

Statement of the Case: Engineer A was hired as an electrical engineer by Company B, a small
manufacturer of control systems for heavy lifting equipment used by loggers and contractors.
The total market consisted of about 200 logging firms, and the company had about a quarter of that market. That is, about 50 of the logging firms used the control system and were repeat
customers, providing about 90 percent of Company B’s sales volume. The control system was
not patented. Although the device was patentable, Company B’s owner had decided to keep the concept secret, and all employees, including Engineer A, signed trade secret documents, agreeing that they would not disclose or otherwise duplicate, use, or sell the concept.

Explanation: This paragraph is setting up a confidentiality / trade secret ethics case. Let’s break it down in a structured way.

---

1) Who is involved

• Engineer A → employee (electrical engineer)

• Company B → small manufacturer of control systems

• Customers → logging firms (about 200 total in the market)

---

2) Business context (important for understanding risk)

• Company B has:

  • ~25% market share (≈ 50 firms)

  • These customers generate ~90% of its revenue

👉 This means:

• The company is highly dependent on a small client base

• Losing competitive advantage could seriously harm the business

---

3) The key technical asset

• The control system:

  • Not patented

  • But could have been patented

Instead, the owner chose:

Trade secret protection

---

4) What is a trade secret?

A trade secret is:

• Valuable technical/business knowledge

• Kept confidential instead of publicly disclosed (like a patent would be)

👉 Examples:

• Design methods

• Algorithms

• Manufacturing techniques

---

5) Why NOT patent it?

If patented:

• The design becomes publicly disclosed

• Others can study it (but can’t legally copy for a period)

If kept as a trade secret:

• No public disclosure

• Protection depends on keeping it confidential

👉 So secrecy = survival

---

6) Engineer A’s obligation

All employees (including Engineer A):

• Signed trade secret agreements

That means they agreed:

• ❌ Not to disclose the concept

• ❌ Not to copy or reuse it elsewhere

• ❌ Not to sell or transfer the idea

👉 This is both:

• A legal obligation

• An ethical obligation

---

7) Why this matters ethically

Under professional standards (e.g., Professional Engineers Ontario):

Engineers must:

• Protect confidential information

• Act with loyalty to their employer/client

• Not misuse proprietary knowledge

---

8) What the paragraph is really setting up

This is a classic ethics scenario setup:

👉 Likely upcoming issue:

• Engineer A may later:

  • Leave the company

  • Use the design elsewhere

  • Disclose the secret

And the question will be:

Is that ethical?

---

9) Simple interpretation

Company B relies heavily on a secret design for its business, and Engineer A has legally and ethically agreed to keep that design confidential.

---

10) Exam insight (very important)

When you see:

• “Not patented” + “trade secret agreement”
  👉 Immediate flags:

• Confidentiality duty is VERY strong

• Misuse = likely misconduct

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After about three years as an employee, Engineer A resigned from Company B to set up her own firm. She designed a more advanced control device, improving upon the concept invented by Company B. To sell her device, Engineer A contacted Company B’s 50 key repeat customers to get them to switch allegiance to her new firm and to her improved product. Company B sued Engineer A in civil court for breach of the confidentiality agreement, and won the case. In her defence, Engineer A stated that, during her employment at Company B, she became aware of  flaws in the original device and her improved device overcame those flaws. Testimony

confirmed that she had never told colleagues at Company B that she was aware of such flaws,

nor did she suggest improvements to the device while employed there. After the civil court

judgment, the owner of Company B asked the provincial Association to discipline Engineer A

for unprofessional conduct.

Question: Is Engineer A guilty of professional misconduct?

Authors’ Comments: Since Engineer A was found liable in civil court, the ruling tends to

confirm the facts of the case. Engineer A did not act as a faithful employee of Company B. She

was apparently aware of flaws in the control device, but rather than use this knowledge for the

benefit of her employer, she used it, and the company’s trade secrets, to her own advantage. She even used Company B’s proprietary list of regular customers to advance her personal welfare.

Such self-serving behaviour is contrary to the Code of Ethics and constitutes professional

misconduct. The Association, almost certainly, would pursue disciplinary action.

F-14: Outdated Practice

 Statement of the Case: Engineer A had been practising engineering for over two decades; but
for the past 10 years, she has been in a management position: supervising traffic flow
measurements and highway planning for the provincial government. Recently, she left the
government job to enter private practice, and one of her first contracts was to design a structure
that had to satisfy the National Building Code.

Although Engineer A had extensive experience with this type of structure prior to entering government service, she had not designed such structures for more than10 years. She was aware that there had been some changes to the Building Code in recent years, but she was very familiar with the older code, and she argued that the old code was likely to be over-conservative.

To be certain that the structure was safe, The client submitted the drawings to the municipality for approval. Upon inspection, the municipal engineer immediately recognized that the wording and style indicated that the engineer had followed the older building code. Moreover, some load data required by the more recent building code was missing. The municipal engineer rejected the drawings. The client complained to the provincial Association.

Question: Should the Association discipline Engineer A for professional misconduct?

Outcome: Upon investigation of the client’s complaint, the Association concluded that the

design was safe, but the beam and column cross-sections were much larger than required under

the current building code. The structure would therefore be more expensive for the client to

construct than it should have been. The Association reprimanded Engineer A for neglecting to

keep herself up-to-date in her field of practice.

Authors’ Comments: Engineers and geoscientists have an obligation to maintain their

competence in their fields of practice. Every provincial or territorial Act requires continuing

competence (although this clause may be in the regulations or Code of Ethics). Continuing

competence means keeping up-to-date on codes, standards, and analysis techniques.

The Codes of Ethics also require professionals to be realistic about evaluating their own abilities and not gambling at the client’s expense. 

Engineers and geoscientists can keep current by attending refresher courses and seminars, attending conferences of engineering societies, reading journals, and so forth. In fact, most provincial Associations now have compulsory requirements for providing evidence of continued competence.

An engineer or geoscientist need not be an expert in every phase of a proposed project before

accepting it, but must become competent through study or research in a reasonable time. If this is not possible, then a colleague or consultant must be hired. An engineer or geoscientist must not put a client’s project at risk by negligence or incompetence.

F-15: Time Off for Professional Activities

 Statement of the Case: Engineer A, a recent university graduate, moved to a small town after

obtaining the P.Eng. designation and was hired by Engineer B, who had a small civil engineering

consulting firm. The firm included a technician and a secretary. Within a few months of arriving,

Engineer A was elected to the executive of the local chapter of the Association. There were

several towns in the chapter territory, and the evening meetings were in different towns

throughout the year. To get to the more-distant meetings on time, Engineer A had to leave work

early to allow travel time.

Engineer A asked Engineer B for permission to leave work an hour

early, but offered to make up the time by working late on other days. Leaving early would occur

about twice per month (including executive meetings) but would not be a major disruption, so

Engineer B agreed. Engineer B rarely attended the monthly chapter meetings.

After a year of employment with the firm, Engineer A expressed interest in taking a computer

software course at a nearby college. Although it was not a university-level course, it was directly

related to the work that Engineer A was performing. It would have required attendance on the

college campus, three hours per week, for 10 weeks. Engineer A asked for permission to attend

the course, offering to work late on other days to make up the lost time. Engineer B refused the

permission, saying that the work schedule was already disrupted when Engineer A left early to

attend the chapter meetings. Engineer A decided not to take the course.

Question: Does the employer have an obligation to assist Engineer A in his professional

activities?

Outcome: A few months later, Engineer Engineer A resigned and moved to another engineering firm in

the same town. No explanation was given for leaving the firm, but the reasons, as confided to a

few of the other members on the Chapter executive, shortly after the resignation, were as

follows:

 “I found it surprising that my boss did not attend meetings of the local Chapter, and I was

even more surprised that he wouldn’t let me re-arrange my time to take a college course

which was intended to make me a better employee. I felt that he just didn’t want me to

improve my skills, so that I would be attractive to other employers. I realized that I didn’t

want to work for a boss with such a poor professional attitude. My new job pays me precisely

what I earned with Engineer B, but my new boss is far more professional, encourages

employees to participate in Association activities, up-grading education and engineering

societies, and even allows a reasonable amount of time off with pay.”

Authors’ Comments: Engineers and geoscientists should encourage other professionals,

technologists, and technicians to participate in continuing education to improve relevant

engineering, geoscience, and management skills. In fact, most Codes of Ethics specifically state

that practitioners should provide opportunities for the professional development of their

associates and subordinates. Employers should permit reasonable time off with pay, for

professional purposes. However, what is “reasonable” depends on circumstances. Such time is

rarely billable to clients or projects, so organizations may understandably insist that the

professional make up the time by working late on other days.

F-16: Accepting a Gift from a Supplier

 Statement of the Case: Engineer A was Chief Engineer of a large manufacturing corporation.

His main responsibilities were product design and heavy manufacturing (mainly metal cutting).

He was also the head of the corporation’s Specifications Committee, which set standards and

specifications for purchasing new manufacturing equipment. He typically sent the committee’s

specifications to the purchasing division, which solicited bids, evaluated the bids in consultation

with the Specifications Committee, and prepared the final purchase documents.

The manager of the purchasing department was a chartered accountant.

The sales agent for Company B, an equipment supplier, invited Engineer A and his wife to join

them for a week’s holiday in Mexico, at Company B’s expense. Since the purchasing department arranged all purchases, Engineer A did not feel that he had any conflict of interest in accepting

Company B’s generosity, so Engineer A and his wife left for an enjoyable week in the sun.

Shortly after his vacation, however, Engineer A was informed by one of his assistants that an

expensive new numerically controlled milling machine supplied by Company B was not

producing close-tolerance parts reliably and appeared to have a defective controller.

Engineer A met with the purchasing manager and explained that machinery supplied by

Company B appeared to be defective. The purchasing manager contacted Company B and asked

them to repair or replace the machine, which was still under warranty. Company B refused to

honour the warranty, claiming the equipment was being used under “speed and feed” conditions

that exceeded specifications. Engineer A and the purchasing manager then met with their boss,

the corporation president, to discuss the problem. After hearing the details, the corporation

president instructed Engineer A to deal with Company B directly, concerning the technical

reasons for the poor-tolerance parts, and if Company B would not honour the warranty, to begin

legal action to recover damages.

At this point, Engineer A explained that he had just spent a week in Mexico with most of the

staff from Company B and would feel very awkward now trying to take such a hard line with

them. The corporation president, astounded at this news, agreed that Engineer A should have no

further dealings with this problem. He assigned the task of dealing with Company B to the

purchasing director and told him to contact Engineer A’s assistant for the technical information

needed. Later that week, the president issued a memo stating that Engineer A had “stepped

down” from the Specifications Committee, and his assistant would replace him.

Question: Did Engineer A have a conflict of interest? Under what conditions would it be

acceptable to accept such a gift from supplier, client, or professional colleague?

Outcome: The problem with Company B was not resolved amicably, and a lawsuit resulted.

Although Engineer A suffered no formal disciplinary action, he clearly lost respect within his

corporation. He found it almost impossible to exert authority in manufacturing decisions, since

he no longer set specifications for the purchase of new machinery. Within a year, Engineer A

took early retirement.

Authors’ Comments: Engineer A created a serious conflict of interest by accepting an

expensive gift from the supplier. Although Engineer A did not negotiate contracts directly with

suppliers, as Chief Engineer and head of the Specifications Committee, he was responsible for

evaluating the performance of the purchases. Fortunately, he disclosed the conflict of interest and

did not compound the problem by concealing the vacation gift. However, his error in judgment

affected his prestige and career. Professionals should be very careful about accepting gifts. It is

sometimes hard to tell if a gift is an innocent courtesy or a serious attempt at bribery. Accepting

a gift can create awkward, compromising situations in business dealings. It is best to have a

blanket rule to decline all gifts.

Explain: Blanket rule - A “blanket rule” means a rule that is applied universally to all situations, without exceptions or case-by-case judgment.

---

Simple definition

Blanket rule = one rule for everything, no flexibility

---

Example (general)

• “No employees can work from home under any circumstances”
  👉 Applies to everyone, no exceptions → blanket rule

---

In engineering / ethics context

A blanket rule can be problematic because:

• Engineering decisions often require judgment and context

• Situations vary in:

  • Risk

  • site conditions

  • client needs

👉 A rigid rule may not lead to the best or safest outcome

---

Example in ethics

❌ Blanket rule:

“Never work on any project where there is any conflict of interest”

✔️ Reality:

• Some conflicts are manageable with disclosure

• Some must be avoided completely

👉 Ethics requires judgment, not blind application

---

In plain terms

A blanket rule treats all cases the same, even when they shouldn’t be.

---

Exam insight (NPPE)

If a question suggests:

• “Always”

• “Never”

• “Under all circumstances”

👉 Be cautious — it may be a blanket rule, and often not the best ethical answer

---

Bottom line

• Blanket rules = simple but rigid

• Engineering ethics = context + professional judgment