DP3
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/177#DP3
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP3
Decision question
Should Firm A use its position as the city's retained inspection engineer as a marketing tool — openly advertising to prospective developer clients that retaining Firm A for private services yields a 50% reduction in inspection costs — or must it refrain from commercially exploiting its publicly conferred authority as a competitive differentiator?
Focus
Firm A, holding the city's plan review and construction inspection contract, must decide whether to actively market its city engineer position to prospective private developer clients by advertising that developers who also retain Firm A for private services can save 50% on inspection costs — a practice that exploits a publicly conferred advantage as a commercial differentiator and independently violates the non-self-serving obligation and fairness in competition principle, regardless of whether the underlying dual-role engagement might otherwise be permissible.
Option1
Firm A immediately discontinues all advertising, solicitation, and communication to prospective developer clients that references the cost savings or other advantages available to developers who retain Firm A for private services, treating its city engineer appointment as a public trust not to be monetized as a commercial differentiator.
Option2
Firm A continues to communicate the cost savings available to developer clients who also retain it for private services, but adds explicit disclosure of the dual-role relationship and the city's awareness of the arrangement, treating the marketing as a transparent communication of a permissible efficiency rather than an exploitation of public authority.
Option3
Firm A refrains from actively advertising the 50% cost savings but responds honestly when prospective developer clients directly inquire about the financial implications of retaining Firm A for both city-mandated and private services, treating passive disclosure of available efficiencies as distinguishable from affirmative exploitation of the public role.
Role
Client
TTL
@prefix case177: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/177#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@prefix proeth-cases: <http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#> .
@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#> .
case177:DP3 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP3" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP3" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Should Firm A use its position as the city's retained inspection engineer as a marketing tool — openly advertising to prospective developer clients that retaining Firm A for private services yields a 50% reduction in inspection costs — or must it refrain from commercially exploiting its publicly conferred authority as a competitive differentiator?" ;
proeth:focus "Firm A, holding the city's plan review and construction inspection contract, must decide whether to actively market its city engineer position to prospective private developer clients by advertising that developers who also retain Firm A for private services can save 50% on inspection costs — a practice that exploits a publicly conferred advantage as a commercial differentiator and independently violates the non-self-serving obligation and fairness in competition principle, regardless of whether the underlying dual-role engagement might otherwise be permissible." ;
proeth:option1 "Firm A immediately discontinues all advertising, solicitation, and communication to prospective developer clients that references the cost savings or other advantages available to developers who retain Firm A for private services, treating its city engineer appointment as a public trust not to be monetized as a commercial differentiator." ;
proeth:option2 "Firm A continues to communicate the cost savings available to developer clients who also retain it for private services, but adds explicit disclosure of the dual-role relationship and the city's awareness of the arrangement, treating the marketing as a transparent communication of a permissible efficiency rather than an exploitation of public authority." ;
proeth:option3 "Firm A refrains from actively advertising the 50% cost savings but responds honestly when prospective developer clients directly inquire about the financial implications of retaining Firm A for both city-mandated and private services, treating passive disclosure of available efficiencies as distinguishable from affirmative exploitation of the public role." ;
proeth:roleLabel "Client" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T09:53:24.922417"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 177 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-03-01T09:53:24.922417
Generated by
ProEthica Case 177 Extraction