DP5

DecisionPoint
http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#DecisionPoint

DP5

After declining to offer gifts and withdrawing from the corrupt procurement process, what affirmative obligations does Roe bear — including potential reporting duties to domestic or foreign authorities and the NSPE — beyond the act of refusal itself?

Having determined that offering gifts to foreign officials is ethically prohibited, Roe must decide what affirmative obligations he bears beyond simply declining to participate in the corrupt procurement arrangement. The case raises the question of whether Roe has duties to report the gift-conditioning practice to relevant authorities — in the foreign country, in the United States, or to the NSPE — and whether his refusal alone satisfies his ethical obligations or whether he bears some responsibility for the competitive disadvantage imposed on other ethical engineering firms that also decline to make gifts.

Satisfy ethical obligations solely by refusing to offer the gifts and withdrawing from the procurement, treating the act of non-participation as the complete discharge of ethical duty without undertaking any affirmative reporting or disclosure obligations.

After declining to participate, affirmatively report the gift-conditioning practice to the NSPE Board of Ethical Review, relevant U.S. authorities, and where feasible to authorities in the foreign country, on the grounds that the spirit of the Code's anti-corruption obligations extends beyond personal non-participation to active resistance of corrupt procurement systems.

Without formal regulatory reporting, document the corrupt procurement practice and disclose its existence to other engineering firms and professional associations that may be affected, enabling the broader engineering community to make informed decisions about participation in the foreign market and collectively resist normalization of the corrupt practice.

Roe (International Engineering Firm Principal)