Roe Firm No-Choice Defense Rejection Domestic Analogy
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/167#Roe_Firm_No-Choice_Defense_Rejection_Domestic_Analogy
Properties
Instance of
DomesticCorruptProcurementAnalogyNon-ExcuseRecognitionObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#DomesticCorruptProcurementAnalogyNon-ExcuseRecognitionObligation
Case context
NSPE BER rejection of the 'no choice' competitive necessity defense; the Board drew an explicit analogy to domestic AE firm payment scandals where the same 'others were doing it' rationale was advanced and rejected.
Compliance status
unmet
Confidence
0.9
Importance
high
Obligated party
Richard Roe / US Engineering Firm Seeking Foreign Government Contract
Obligation statement
Roe's firm was obligated to recognize that the 'no choice' defense — that competitors in other countries would comply with the gift-giving practice — does not constitute an ethical justification for participation, just as the same defense failed for domestic AE firms that paid public officials to influence contract awards, and that the choice to decline corrupt procurement participation was always available.
Temporal scope
At the time of deciding whether to offer gifts and in any subsequent ethical defense
Relationships
defeasibleUnder
Competitive Necessity No-Choice Defense Invocation
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.
This approach is not dissimilar to the arguments advanced by those who have so recently been revealed as offering financial payments to public officials to influence the award of contracts for architect-engineer services. The rationale was 'We had no choice. Others were doing it, and if we did not we would not be considered.'
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_No-Choice_Defense_Rejection_Domestic_Analogy a proeth:DomesticCorruptProcurementAnalogyNon-ExcuseRecognitionObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Roe Firm No-Choice Defense Rejection Domestic Analogy" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case167:Roe_Firm_Foreign_Official_Corrupt_Payment_Prohibition_Violation ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case167:Competitive_Necessity_No-Choice_Defense_Invocation ;
proeth:casecontext "NSPE BER rejection of the 'no choice' competitive necessity defense; the Board drew an explicit analogy to domestic AE firm payment scandals where the same 'others were doing it' rationale was advanced and rejected." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.9" ;
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 "Domestic Corrupt Procurement Analogy Non-Excuse Recognition Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Roe's firm was obligated to recognize that the 'no choice' defense — that competitors in other countries would comply with the gift-giving practice — does not constitute an ethical justification for participation, just as the same defense failed for domestic AE firms that paid public officials to influence contract awards, and that the choice to decline corrupt procurement participation was always available." ;
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 deciding 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.",
"This approach is not dissimilar to the arguments advanced by those who have so recently been revealed as offering financial payments to public officials to influence the award of contracts for architect-engineer services. The rationale was 'We had no choice. Others were doing it, and if we did not we would not be considered.'" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 167 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-02T10:28:27.337912"^^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
2026-03-02T10:28:27.337912
Generated by
ProEthica Case 167 Extraction