Roe Firm Competitor Gift-Practice Non-Justification Compliance
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/167#Roe_Firm_Competitor_Gift-Practice_Non-Justification_Compliance
Properties
Instance of
CompetitorGift-PracticeNon-JustificationComplianceObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#CompetitorGift-PracticeNon-JustificationComplianceObligation
Case context
NSPE BER explicit rejection of the 'no choice' / 'competitors were doing it' defense in the foreign gift-giving context.
Compliance status
unmet
Confidence
0.93
Importance
high
Obligated party
Richard Roe / US Engineering Firm Seeking Foreign Government Contract
Obligation statement
Roe's firm was obligated to refuse to use the fact that competing engineering firms in other countries had adhered to the local gift-giving practice as ethical justification for engaging in the same conduct, recognizing that the prevalence of the corrupt practice among competitors did not transform it into an ethically permissible one.
Temporal scope
At the time of evaluating whether to offer gifts and in any subsequent ethical defense
Relationships
defeasibleUnder
Roe Firm Ethics Compliance Competitive Disadvantage
derivedFromPrinciple
No Choice Defense Rejected as Peer Competit or Normalization
Source Evidence
Source text
The defense to this activity has generally been that the companies making such gifts had 'no choice,' meaning that without such action they would not have been able to secure the contracts because competitors in other countries would have complied with the practice.
Text references
The defense to this activity has generally been that the companies making such gifts had 'no choice,' meaning that without such action they would not have been able to secure the contracts because competitors in other countries would have complied with the practice.
The short answer is that there is a choice--the choice of declining to be drawn into a seamy procedure for self-gain.
There may be some appeal to this line of argument from a purely pragmatic standpoint, but it must of necessity fail in the final analysis.
TTL
@prefix case167: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/167#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@prefix proeth-core: <http://proethica.org/ontology/core#> .
@prefix prov: <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
case167:Roe_Firm_Competitor_Gift-Practice_Non-Justification_Compliance a proeth:CompetitorGift-PracticeNon-JustificationComplianceObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Roe Firm Competitor Gift-Practice Non-Justification Compliance" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case167:Roe_Firm_Foreign_Official_Corrupt_Payment_Prohibition_Violation ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case167:Roe_Firm_Ethics_Compliance_Competitive_Disadvantage ;
proeth:casecontext "NSPE BER explicit rejection of the 'no choice' / 'competitors were doing it' defense in the foreign gift-giving context." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.93" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case167:No_Choice_Defense_Rejected_as_Peer_Competitor_Normalization ;
proeth:discoveredincase "167" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-02T10:18:18.218286+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "167" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-02T10:18:18.218286+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Richard Roe / US Engineering Firm Seeking Foreign Government Contract" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Competitor Gift-Practice Non-Justification Compliance Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Roe's firm was obligated to refuse to use the fact that competing engineering firms in other countries had adhered to the local gift-giving practice as ethical justification for engaging in the same conduct, recognizing that the prevalence of the corrupt practice among competitors did not transform it into an ethically permissible one." ;
proeth:sourcetext "The defense to this activity has generally been that the companies making such gifts had 'no choice,' meaning that without such action they would not have been able to secure the contracts because competitors in other countries would have complied with the practice." ;
proeth:temporalscope "At the time of evaluating whether to offer gifts and in any subsequent ethical defense" ;
proeth:textreferences "The defense to this activity has generally been that the companies making such gifts had 'no choice,' meaning that without such action they would not have been able to secure the contracts because competitors in other countries would have complied with the practice.",
"The short answer is that there is a choice--the choice of declining to be drawn into a seamy procedure for self-gain.",
"There may be some appeal to this line of argument from a purely pragmatic standpoint, but it must of necessity fail in the final analysis." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 167 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-02T10:28:27.338914"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 167 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
167
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-02T10:18:18.218286+00:00
First case
167
Generated
2026-03-02T10:18:18.218286+00:00
Attributed to
Case 167 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-02T10:28:27.338914
Generated by
ProEthica Case 167 Extraction