Additional Precedents Established → Late-1980s Reinforcement Rulings
In the seventies, the Board of Ethical Review noted that the so-called 'When in Rome...' rule, whereby engineers could engage in the legal and ethical practices of the host country was not consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics (see BER Case 76-6).
The Board of Ethical Review's decision at that time was proper then and continues to be proper today.
the facts in BER Case 76-6 involved a direct 'kickback' between engineer and public official
NSPE Board of Ethical Review to establish continuity of ethical principle across decades
Foundational precedent from the 1970s rejecting the 'When in Rome' rule — the principle that engineers could engage in legal and ethical practices of the host country — in the context of a direct kickback between an engineer and a public official.
BER Case 76-6 decision (1976) before BER Cases 79-8, 81-4, 87-4, 87-5
BER Case 76-6 ruling (1976) equals Ongoing principle applied in present case
Earlier and subsequent BER cases also support this view (See BER Case Nos. 87-5, 79-8, 87-4, 81-4).
NSPE Board of Ethical Review as corroborating authority
Cited as one of several supporting precedents reinforcing the principle that engineers must maintain consistent ethical conduct regardless of the country in which they are practicing.
NSPE recently considered a similar set of facts in BER Case 96-5.
As the Board noted in Case 96-5, engineers must always follow their ethical compass on matters of this type
The Board reviewed the case and determined that it would not be ethical for Engineer A to proceed with the project under these circumstances.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review as primary analogical precedent
Directly analogous precedent involving a U.S. consulting engineer encouraged to associate with a local engineer in a foreign country where gift-giving to public officials was an accepted custom; Board held it would not be ethical to proceed under those circumstances.
BER Case 96-5 (1996) before Present case involving Engineer A
BER Cases 79-8 and 81-4 before BER Cases 87-4 and 87-5
BER Cases 87-4 and 87-5 before BER Case 96-5
BER Direct vs Indirect Corrupt Arrangement Factual Distinction BER Case Discussion
Direct vs Indirect Corrupt Arrangement Factual Distinction Capability
The BER demonstrated the capability to recognize and analyze the factual distinction between direct kickback arrangements (BER Case 76-6) and indirect 'encouragement to associate' arrangements (BER Case 96-5 and present case), correctly concluding that both configurations violate NSPE ethics standards
BER analysis distinguishing the present case's indirect 'business arrangements' structure from the direct kickback in BER Case 76-6, while reaching the same normative conclusion
Explicit acknowledgment of the factual distinction between direct kickback and indirect 'encouragement to associate' while affirming that both are ethically impermissible under NSPE standards
It should be noted that the facts in BER Case 76-6 involved a direct 'kickback' between engineer and public official, while BER Case 96-5 involved the 'encouragement' by a foreign official to 'associate' with a local engineer.
Engineer B proposed to Engineer A that if the project was awarded to Engineer A's firm, Engineer B would handle 'business arrangements' in Country A
BER Global Engineering Ethics Uniform Standard Institutional Advocacy BER Case Discussion
Global Engineering Ethics Uniform Standard Institutional Advocacy Capability
The BER demonstrated the capability to articulate and advocate for the institutional imperative of applying uniform NSPE ethics standards to all members regardless of national origin, connecting this to the global credibility and meaning of the NSPE Code of Ethics
BER justification for applying the same NSPE ethics standards to Engineer A as a non-U.S. NSPE International Member as it would apply to U.S.-licensed engineers
Explicit statement that applying different standards to different member classes would be 'a major error' and that uniform high standards are necessary for the NSPE Code to 'gain increased meaning and application in this period of heightened global engineering practice'
the BER firmly believes that it would be a major error for NSPE to apply one standard of conduct to one set of NSPE members and another standard of conduct to another set of NSPE members (See Code Section III.8.a.).
If the NSPE Code of Ethics is to gain increased meaning and application in this period of heightened global engineering practice, all NSPE members should be bound by the same high standards, notwithstanding national borders or cultural differences.
NSPE is not serving the engineering profession or the public by concluding otherwise.
BER International Practice Slippery Slope Ethical Consequence Reasoning BER Case Discussion
International Practice Slippery Slope Ethical Consequence Reasoning Capability
The BER demonstrated the capability to reason about the systemic downstream consequences of permitting situational ethics in international engineering practice, identifying the risk of weakening host-country citizen protections
BER justification for applying uniform NSPE ethics standards to all members regardless of national origin or host-country customs
Articulation of the slippery slope argument that permitting engineers to apply only host-country minimal standards would progressively weaken protections for citizens of host countries
If the Board was to decide otherwise, it would not be much of a leap to suggest that engineers practicing in another country could engage in practices that could weaken the minimal protections afforded to the citizens of that country because engineers would only be bound by the requirements, however minimal that might exist in that country.
We believe that such an approach is wholly unacceptable and refuse to follow that path.
BER Multi-Precedent International Corrupt Payment Cross-Case Synthesis BER Case Discussion
BER Multi-Precedent International Corrupt Payment Cross-Case Synthesis Capability
The BER demonstrated the capability to retrieve and synthesize multiple precedent cases (BER 76-6, 96-5, 87-5, 79-8, 87-4, 81-4) addressing corrupt payments in international engineering practice, distinguishing factual variations while identifying the uniform normative conclusion
BER analysis of Engineer A's situation involving Engineer B's proposed 'business arrangements' and Country A's gift-giving customs
Synthesis of six BER precedent cases spanning direct kickbacks, indirect 'encouragement to associate' arrangements, and gift-giving customs, concluding that all configurations violate NSPE ethics standards
BER NAFTA GATS International Engineering Practice Context Awareness BER Case Discussion
NAFTA GATS International Engineering Practice Context Awareness Capability
The BER demonstrated awareness of the NAFTA and GATS international trade context that has increased engineers' exposure to differing design selection methods and cultural expectations, while affirming that this context does not modify ethics obligations
BER contextual framing of the international engineering ethics issues raised by Engineer A's situation
Explicit discussion of NAFTA and GATS as drivers of increased international engineering practice and the resulting exposure to differing procurement customs
The Board noted that with the increase in international engineering practice as a result of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), engineers are being exposed to differing design selection methods.
Some of these methods involve a design selection process which is more deliberative, more subjective and more personal than the methods employed in the U.S.
BER Situational Ethics Categorical Prohibition
Established in BER Case 76-6 (1970s), reaffirmed in BER Case 96-5, and applied in the present case; persists as binding precedent
All NSPE members practicing internationally
the Board of Ethical Review noted that the so-called 'When in Rome...' rule, whereby engineers could engage in the legal and ethical practices of the host country was not consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics (see BER Case 76-6)
Situational Ethics Prohibition Precedent Active State
The established BER precedent categorically prohibiting 'When in Rome' situational ethics adjustments for engineers practicing internationally
Not terminated — represents established and repeatedly reaffirmed precedent
Situational ethics cannot be practiced any more in the professional practice area than it can in any technical area of practice
engineers must be consistent in their ethical conduct regardless of where it is the engineer is rendering professional services
First BER consideration of whether engineers practicing abroad could adopt local ethical standards (BER Case 76-6)
BER Uniform NSPE Ethics Standard Cross-Member-Class Application BER Case Discussion
The BER considered whether to apply a different or lower ethics standard to Engineer A as a non-U.S. NSPE member practicing under the laws and customs of his home country, where corrupt payment practices were legal and culturally accepted.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review; NSPE Institution
Uniform NSPE Ethics Standard Cross-Member-Class Application Obligation
The BER was obligated to apply the same NSPE Code of Ethics standards to Engineer A as a non-U.S. NSPE International Member as it would apply to U.S. NSPE members, refusing to establish a differential or lower standard of conduct for non-U.S. members based on their national origin, country of residence, or home-country legal norms.
the BER firmly believes that it would be a major error for NSPE to apply one standard of conduct to one set of NSPE members and another standard of conduct to another set of NSPE members (See Code Section III.8.a.)
In the BER's deliberation and determination of this case
If the NSPE Code of Ethics is to gain increased meaning and application in this period of heightened global engineering practice, all NSPE members should be bound by the same high standards, notwithstanding national borders or cultural differences
NSPE is not serving the engineering profession or the public by concluding otherwise
BER When-in-Rome Situational Ethics Rejection BER Case Discussion
When-in-Rome Situational Ethics Rejection Capability
The BER demonstrated the capability to identify and reject 'When in Rome' situational ethics reasoning, tracing this principle from BER Case 76-6 through the present case and affirming its continued validity
BER discussion of whether Engineer A's participation in Country A's gift-giving customs could be justified by host-country acceptability
Explicit rejection of the 'When in Rome' rule as inconsistent with NSPE Code of Ethics, citing BER Case 76-6 and affirming that the decision 'was proper then and continues to be proper today'
In the seventies, the Board of Ethical Review noted that the so-called 'When in Rome...' rule, whereby engineers could engage in the legal and ethical practices of the host country was not consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics (see BER Case 76-6). The Board of Ethical Review's decision at that time was proper then and continues to be proper today.
Situational ethics cannot be practiced any more in the professional practice area than it can in any technical area of practice.
CausalLink_Engaging in Foreign Government
CausalLink_Engineer in BER 76-6 Making Di
CausalLink_Engineer in BER 96-5 Proceedin
CausalLink_Joining NSPE as International
CausalLink_Providing Cash Payments to For
It would not be ethical for Engineer A to provide cash payments or in-kind property to public officials in foreign countries in order to obtain and retain business from those public officials.
Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A may not make cash payments or provide in-kind property to foreign officials, the voluntary and knowing acceptance of NSPE international membership itself constitutes a binding contractual-ethical commitment that cannot be selectively waived on the basis of home-country legal permissibility. When Engineer A joined NSPE as an international member, he accepted the full Code of Ethics as a condition of membership — not a curated subset of provisions convenient to his operating environment. That voluntary acceptance is analytically decisive: it forecloses the argument that home-country law sets the ceiling of Engineer A's professional obligations. The Board's reasoning implicitly treats NSPE membership as a self-imposed higher standard, and that framing is correct. The competitive disadvantage Engineer A may suffer as a result is a foreseeable and accepted consequence of that voluntary commitment, not an equitable basis for relief from the Code's prohibitions. NSPE need not have an external enforcement mechanism over non-US members for this obligation to be real; the ethical force of a voluntarily assumed duty does not depend on the existence of a coercive sanction to back it.
The Board's conclusion rests on principles that are entirely independent of whether Engineer A's home country has enacted legislation equivalent to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The ethical prohibition on payments to foreign officials derives from the NSPE Code of Ethics — specifically the requirements of honesty, avoidance of deceptive acts, and the categorical bar on offering or receiving contributions to improperly influence the award of contracts — not from any particular domestic statute. This means the Board's analysis would be identical in substance whether Engineer A's home country criminalized such payments or, as here, actively subsidized them through a tax deduction. The tax deductibility provision in Engineer A's home country is particularly instructive: it demonstrates that legal permissibility can extend well beyond mere tolerance of conduct into affirmative state encouragement of it, yet that encouragement carries no ethical weight under the Code. The ethical standard is self-contained and does not require domestic legal reinforcement to operate. This independence from domestic law is not a weakness in the Board's reasoning but its central strength, because it prevents the Code from being hollowed out jurisdiction by jurisdiction wherever local law is more permissive.
The Board's prohibition extends with equal force to indirect payment arrangements — such as routing cash or in-kind property through a local intermediary like Engineer B — and this extension is not merely a logical inference but is expressly grounded in the Code's language barring contributions made either directly or indirectly to improperly influence contract awards. The indirect-payment scenario is ethically equivalent to the direct one because the corrupt purpose, the corrupt effect on public procurement integrity, and Engineer A's knowing participation in the arrangement remain unchanged regardless of the number of transactional steps interposed between Engineer A and the foreign official. Recognizing this equivalence is critical in international practice contexts where the use of local agents, consultants, or joint-venture partners as payment conduits is a well-documented structural feature of corrupt procurement systems. The Board's reasoning, read in conjunction with the Code's explicit indirect-payment language, forecloses the argument that Engineer A can launder an ethically prohibited payment into a permissible one simply by inserting an intermediary. This also means Engineer A bears an affirmative due-diligence obligation to assess whether fees paid to local agents are being passed through to foreign officials, because willful blindness to that possibility would itself constitute a violation of the honesty and integrity obligations the Code imposes.
A consequentialist analysis reinforces rather than undermines the Board's categorical conclusion. The argument that refusing to make payments to foreign officials systematically excludes ethical engineers from foreign markets — and thereby leaves those markets served exclusively by less scrupulous competitors — proves too much. Accepted as a general principle, it would justify any professional misconduct that competitors are willing to commit, effectively converting the competitive behavior of the least ethical market participants into the ethical floor for all others. The aggregate harms of normalizing corrupt procurement payments are well-documented and severe: they systematically misallocate infrastructure resources away from public need and toward political favorability, erode public trust in government procurement, suppress the development of merit-based competitive engineering markets in host countries, and degrade the global reputation of the engineering profession as a whole. These systemic harms vastly outweigh the short-term business gains any individual engineer secures through corrupt payments. Moreover, the premise that ethical engineers will be uniformly excluded from markets where corruption is prevalent is empirically contestable — some clients, including reform-minded government officials and international development institutions, actively prefer contractors who can demonstrate clean procurement records. The Board's categorical prohibition is therefore sound on consequentialist grounds as well as deontological ones.
The Board's analysis, while correctly resolving the immediate ethical question, leaves unaddressed a forward-looking institutional obligation that the case implicitly raises: whether NSPE, as a professional body whose members increasingly operate across borders under frameworks such as NAFTA and GATS, has a responsibility to advocate for binding multilateral anti-corruption standards that would level the competitive playing field the Code's prohibitions currently tilt against its most ethically compliant members. The absence of such international standards at the time of this case placed the entire burden of ethical compliance on individual NSPE members like Engineer A, who bore a competitive disadvantage that their non-member competitors did not. While the Board correctly concluded that this disadvantage does not excuse non-compliance, it does not follow that NSPE's institutional obligations end with issuing that conclusion. A profession that imposes higher ethical standards on its members than the surrounding legal environment requires has a corresponding institutional interest in working to raise that legal environment toward the profession's own standards — both to protect its members from structural competitive harm and to advance the public welfare goals that animate the Code in the first place. The Board's silence on this point is understandable given its adjudicative rather than legislative function, but it represents a gap in the case's overall treatment of the international practice context.
Engineer A's voluntary acceptance of NSPE international membership does create a binding ethical obligation that supersedes the legal permissions of his home country. The act of joining NSPE is not a passive administrative enrollment but an affirmative professional commitment to the Code of Ethics in its entirety. By accepting membership, Engineer A implicitly acknowledged that the Code would govern his professional conduct regardless of where he practices or what his home-country law permits. However, NSPE's enforcement mechanisms for international members are structurally limited: the organization cannot impose legal sanctions, cannot revoke professional licenses issued by foreign jurisdictions, and cannot compel compliance through regulatory authority. The practical enforcement tool is membership revocation or suspension, which carries reputational rather than legal consequences. This gap between ethical obligation and enforcement capacity does not diminish the obligation itself — it simply means that compliance for international members rests more heavily on professional conscience and voluntary commitment than on institutional coercion. The Board's conclusion is therefore ethically sound even if its enforceability is imperfect.
The concern that NSPE's prohibition inadvertently harms host-country citizens by excluding the most ethically scrupulous engineers from winning contracts in corrupt markets is a genuine consequentialist tension, but it does not withstand sustained scrutiny. The premise assumes that Engineer A's participation in corrupt procurement would produce better public welfare outcomes for host-country citizens than his non-participation. This assumption is empirically weak: corrupt procurement systematically misallocates infrastructure resources, inflates project costs, reduces quality, and entrenches the very official misconduct that harms host-country populations most directly. An engineer who wins a contract through bribery does not thereby serve the public welfare of the host country — he participates in a system that degrades it. Furthermore, the argument proves too much: if the harm-to-host-country rationale justified making corrupt payments, it would justify virtually any ethical violation that produced a contract award, dissolving the prohibition entirely. The Board's categorical conclusion is therefore consistent with, rather than in tension with, the Public Welfare Paramount principle when that principle is applied to the full causal chain of corruption's effects rather than only to the immediate contract outcome.
The Board's analysis, while thorough on the question of whether Engineer A must refrain from making corrupt payments, does not address whether Engineer A has any affirmative obligation to advocate for legislative reform in his home country. This omission is analytically significant. The NSPE Code of Ethics imposes not only negative duties — refraining from prohibited conduct — but also positive professional obligations, including obligations to uphold the honor and dignity of the profession and to act in ways that advance public welfare. A strong reading of these positive obligations would suggest that Engineer A, having identified a structural legal deficiency in his home country's framework — namely, the tax deductibility of bribes to foreign officials — has at minimum a professional interest, and arguably a professional duty, to use his standing as an NSPE member and practicing engineer to advocate for reform. However, the Board appropriately stopped short of imposing this as a formal ethical requirement, since the Code's affirmative advocacy obligations are less precisely defined than its prohibitions, and imposing a mandatory advocacy duty on international members operating in foreign legal systems would raise serious questions about the scope of NSPE's institutional reach. The conclusion is that advocacy for reform is ethically commendable and consistent with the Code's spirit, but the Board was correct not to frame it as a binding obligation equivalent to the payment prohibition itself.
The existence of international trade frameworks such as NAFTA and GATS, which facilitate cross-border engineering practice, does not by itself create a binding baseline international ethics standard enforceable against individual engineers. These frameworks are primarily economic and regulatory instruments governing market access, professional recognition, and trade in services between signatory states — they are not ethics codes and do not purport to govern the professional conduct of individual practitioners. At the time of this case, no binding multilateral anti-corruption standard with direct applicability to individual engineers existed. The OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, which came into force in 1999, moved in this direction at the state level but still required domestic implementing legislation to bind individuals. The absence of such binding international standards at the time of the case makes the Board's ethics-first reasoning more compelling, not less: in the absence of an external international legal framework to which the Board could defer, the NSPE Code of Ethics was the only available instrument capable of imposing a consistent standard on Engineer A's cross-border conduct. The Board's reliance on the Code as the primary normative authority was therefore not a fallback position but the only coherent institutional response available.
The tension between the Diplomatic Ethics Navigation Obligation and the Situational Ethics Rejection principle is real but resolvable without abandoning either. The Diplomatic Ethics Navigation Obligation does not require Engineer A to participate in corrupt payment practices — it requires him to navigate cross-cultural norms with sensitivity and professionalism. These are distinct demands. Engineer A can decline to make payments to foreign officials while simultaneously demonstrating cultural respect through other means: transparent communication about his professional constraints, offering alternative value propositions, engaging local partners ethically, and explaining his position without condescension or moral lecturing. The Situational Ethics Rejection principle prohibits adjusting the ethical standard itself to local custom — it does not prohibit thoughtful, culturally informed communication about why that standard applies. The practical resolution is that Engineer A must hold the ethical line on the substance of the prohibition while exercising diplomatic skill in how he communicates and manages relationships around that constraint. The two principles are therefore complementary in practice even if they appear to conflict in the abstract.
The structural competitive disadvantage that the NSPE Code imposes on Engineer A relative to home-country competitors who are not NSPE members and face no equivalent ethics constraint is a genuine fairness concern, but it does not constitute a valid basis for relaxing the Code's prohibition. The Fairness in Professional Competition principle is invoked to protect the integrity of competitive processes — not to guarantee equal outcomes for all market participants regardless of their ethical commitments. When Engineer A voluntarily joined NSPE, he accepted that the Code would impose constraints that non-members do not face. This is not a structural injustice imposed on Engineer A by NSPE — it is the predictable consequence of a voluntary commitment to a higher professional standard. Moreover, the argument that ethical constraints are unfair because they disadvantage compliant engineers relative to non-compliant ones would, if accepted, eliminate the practical force of every professional ethics code: any prohibition that is not universally enforced across all competitors would become voidable on fairness grounds. The Board correctly rejected this reasoning. The competitive disadvantage is real, acknowledged, and accepted as the cost of professional integrity.
From a consequentialist perspective, the aggregate harms produced by normalizing cash payments to foreign officials substantially outweigh any short-term business gains Engineer A might secure, and this calculus supports the Board's categorical prohibition even for members operating in permissive legal environments. The relevant harms are not limited to the immediate transaction: each corrupt payment reinforces a procurement culture that systematically diverts public infrastructure resources from their intended beneficiaries, inflates project costs borne by host-country taxpayers, creates incentives for officials to prolong or manufacture procurement opportunities, and degrades the competitive position of all engineers who refuse to participate. When aggregated across the engineering profession globally, the normalization of corrupt payments produces a race to the bottom in which the most ethically compromised competitors set the market standard. The consequentialist case for the prohibition is therefore not merely about Engineer A's individual conduct but about the systemic effects of the professional norm that his conduct either reinforces or resists. The Board's categorical conclusion is consequentially justified precisely because it operates at the level of norm-setting rather than case-by-case outcome optimization.
From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A's willingness to make cash payments to foreign officials — even when legally permissible under home-country law — reflects a failure of the character traits the NSPE Code demands of all members. Virtue ethics evaluates conduct not by its legal permissibility or its consequences in isolation, but by whether it reflects the stable character dispositions of a person of professional integrity. An engineer of genuine honesty does not make payments designed to corrupt a procurement process simply because no domestic law forbids it — the wrongness of the conduct is not contingent on its legal status. The virtue of professional integrity requires that Engineer A's conduct be consistent with his professional commitments regardless of the legal environment in which he operates. Furthermore, virtue ethics would note that the willingness to make such payments when legally permitted reveals something about the agent's character that is incompatible with the professional identity NSPE membership represents: it suggests that Engineer A's ethical restraint, if any, is externally imposed rather than internally constituted. The Code's demand for integrity is a demand for character, not merely for rule-following, and that demand applies with full force to Engineer A irrespective of jurisdiction.
From a deontological perspective, the NSPE Board of Ethical Review has a duty to apply a single, uniform ethics standard to all members — domestic and international alike — and any differential treatment of international members based on home-country legal permissibility would constitute an impermissible form of moral relativism. The universalizability test central to deontological ethics requires that a moral rule be applicable to all relevantly similar agents in relevantly similar circumstances. Engineer A's nationality and home-country legal framework are not morally relevant differences that would justify applying a different ethics standard to him than to a US-based NSPE member facing the same conduct question. If the prohibition on corrupt payments to foreign officials is grounded in principles of honesty, public welfare, and professional integrity — as the Code clearly intends — then those principles apply with equal force regardless of the member's nationality. To hold otherwise would be to make the Code's core prohibitions contingent on the legal environment of the member's home country, which would effectively transform the Code from a universal professional standard into a jurisdiction-specific compliance checklist. The Board's uniform application of the standard is therefore not only institutionally consistent but deontologically required.
If Engineer A's home country had enacted legislation equivalent to the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the ethical analysis would not change in substance, because the Board's conclusion rests on principles that are entirely independent of domestic legal prohibitions. The Board's reasoning proceeds from the NSPE Code of Ethics — specifically from principles of honesty, public welfare, and professional integrity — not from the legal status of the payments under any domestic law. The Code's prohibition is not derived from or dependent on the FCPA or any equivalent statute; it exists as an independent professional norm. This is confirmed by the structure of the Board's analysis, which treats home-country legal permissibility as a non-excuse rather than as a relevant variable in the ethical calculus. A hypothetical FCPA-equivalent in Engineer A's home country would align legal and ethical obligations, making compliance easier and removing the competitive disadvantage argument, but it would not alter the ethical conclusion. The conclusion that making corrupt payments to foreign officials is unethical for NSPE members would be identical whether or not domestic law prohibited such payments.
If Engineer A had declined NSPE international membership specifically to avoid being bound by the Code's prohibition on payments to foreign officials, that choice would have been legally permissible but ethically revealing in a way that the Board's analysis implicitly addresses. The voluntary nature of NSPE membership is a double-edged consideration: it strengthens the conclusion that Engineer A is fully bound by the Code — because he accepted its terms without compulsion — but it also raises the question of whether strategic non-membership to circumvent ethics obligations is itself ethically problematic. The answer is that strategic non-membership to enable conduct that the Code prohibits would not be ethically defensible, because the Code's prohibitions on corrupt payments to foreign officials reflect principles of professional integrity that apply to all engineers by virtue of their professional status, not merely to NSPE members by virtue of their membership. NSPE membership makes the obligation explicit and enforceable within the organization, but it does not create the underlying ethical duty — it recognizes and codifies a duty that exists independently. An engineer who declines membership to avoid the Code's reach has not escaped the ethical obligation; he has simply removed himself from the institutional framework that would hold him accountable for violating it.
If Engineer A had routed payments to foreign officials through Engineer B as a local intermediary rather than making them directly, the Board's ethical conclusion would not have differed, and this is confirmed by the Code's explicit prohibition on indirect as well as direct contributions under provision II.5.b. The use of an intermediary is a structural evasion of the prohibition, not a substantive distinction that alters the ethical character of the underlying conduct. Engineer A would remain the principal actor whose intent and resources drive the corrupt arrangement; Engineer B's role as facilitator does not transfer or dilute Engineer A's ethical responsibility. The Board's treatment of direct versus indirect arrangements reveals that the Code's prohibition is conduct-focused and outcome-focused rather than formality-focused: what matters is whether a corrupt payment reaches a foreign official in exchange for business, not whether Engineer A's hand is the one that delivers it. This analysis also implicates provision II.1.d., which prohibits engineers from associating in business ventures with persons engaged in fraudulent or dishonest practices — engaging Engineer B as a knowing intermediary for corrupt payments would constitute exactly such an association.
The Board resolved the tension between the Ethics Code as Higher Standard Than Legal Minimum and the Fairness in Professional Competition principle by treating competitive disadvantage as a foreseeable and acceptable consequence of voluntary NSPE membership rather than as a mitigating factor that could relax ethical obligations. When Engineer A joined NSPE as an International Member, he accepted the full Code of Ethics, including its prohibition on corrupt payments, with constructive knowledge that home-country competitors not bound by the Code might operate under more permissive rules. The Board's reasoning implicitly holds that the Fairness in Professional Competition principle protects the integrity of competition — meaning that contracts should be won on merit — and is therefore not violated when an ethical engineer loses business he could only have won through bribery. Paradoxically, the principle of fair competition is vindicated, not undermined, by refusing to participate in corrupt procurement, because the corrupt payment itself is what distorts competition. The case thus teaches that competitive fairness arguments cannot be invoked to justify the very conduct that destroys competitive fairness.
The tension between the Situational Ethics Rejection principle and the Diplomatic Ethics Navigation Obligation was resolved asymmetrically: the Board permits cultural sensitivity in how Engineer A declines to make payments — that is, in the diplomatic manner of refusal — but categorically forbids cultural sensitivity as a justification for making the payments in the first place. This distinction is critical. The Local Custom Non-Excuse Principle does not require Engineer A to be culturally tone-deaf or commercially abrasive; it requires only that the ethical outcome — non-payment — remain constant regardless of local norms. The case therefore teaches a two-layer principle prioritization: the substantive ethical obligation is non-negotiable and governed by the Situational Ethics Rejection principle, while the procedural dimension of how that obligation is honored in cross-cultural contexts retains flexibility under the Diplomatic Ethics Navigation Obligation. Collapsing these two layers — treating the manner of refusal as equivalent to the substance of the prohibition — would be the error that allows 'When in Rome' reasoning to erode the Code's universality.
The Board's application of the Uniform Ethics Standard principle to an International Member whose home-country law not only permits but affirmatively incentivizes payments to foreign officials through tax deductions reveals that the Public Welfare Paramount principle functions as the foundational rationale that makes uniform application coherent rather than merely formalistic. The Board does not apply the same standard to all members simply for institutional symmetry; it does so because the harms that corrupt procurement inflicts on host-country citizens — misallocated infrastructure resources, erosion of public trust, exclusion of merit-based competitors — are identical regardless of whether the paying engineer is a US domestic member or an NSPE International Member. The Public Welfare Paramount principle thus supplies the substantive moral content that prevents the Uniform Ethics Standard from being reduced to an arbitrary membership rule. This interaction also resolves the tension identified in Q202: the Board implicitly rejects the argument that excluding ethical engineers from corrupt markets reduces public welfare, because markets systematically captured by corrupt procurement already fail to deliver genuine public welfare, and the presence of one more corrupt actor does not improve that outcome. The case teaches that uniform standards and public welfare are mutually reinforcing rather than competing, and that apparent conflicts between them dissolve when public welfare is assessed at the systemic rather than the transactional level.
Corrupt Payment Prohibition Applied to Engineer A Engineer B Kickback Arrangement
Country A Government Foreign Government Engineering Services Client
Engineer A Non-US NSPE Member International Engineer
Engineer B Local Intermediary Kickback Facilitating Engineer
Local Custom Non-Excuse for Professional Ethics Violation Principle
The BER held that Engineer A could not ethically proceed with the project under Engineer B's proposed 'business arrangements' — which amounted to Engineer B handling kickback payments to Country A public officials in exchange for project award — because such arrangements constitute prohibited compensation in exchange for work regardless of their local legality
The corrupt payment prohibition applies to indirect arrangements (using a local intermediary to handle 'business arrangements') as well as direct payments; the use of Engineer B as a conduit does not insulate Engineer A from the prohibition
Corrupt Payment Prohibition in Professional Engagement Procurement
Engineer B proposed to Engineer A that if the project was awarded to Engineer A's firm, Engineer B would handle 'business arrangements' in Country A and that Engineer A would be involved in overall management of the project, as well as all technical matters.
The corrupt payment prohibition is categorical and admits no exception for local custom, legal permissibility, or indirect facilitation through intermediaries
the NSPE Code has been clearly interpreted to prohibit the payment of any compensation in exchange for work.
Corrupt Payment Prohibition Invoked Against Engineer A Kickback Arrangement
Cash payments or in-kind property to Country A government officials
Engineer B Local Intermediary Kickback Facilitating Engineer role
Competitive disadvantage in Country A market
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
Engineer A is prohibited under NSPE ethics from authorizing or participating in cash payments or in-kind property transfers to foreign government officials — or from engaging Engineer B as a kickback-facilitating intermediary — in order to obtain the Country A water project contract, regardless of the home-country legal authorization for such payments
The corrupt payment prohibition applies to both direct payments to officials and to arrangements through local intermediaries whose function is to facilitate such payments; the intermediary structure does not insulate Engineer A from ethical responsibility
Engineer A International Government Consulting Engineer
Under the laws of Engineer A's home country, it is not illegal for individuals and companies to provide cash payments or in-kind property to public officials in foreign countries in order to obtain and retain business from those public officials.
The corrupt payment prohibition is categorical and cannot be overridden by competitive pressure, local legal permissiveness, or the use of intermediaries to create distance from the corrupt payment
the laws of Engineer A's home country permit companies to claim a business tax deduction for cash payment or in-kind property to foreign officials in order to obtain or retain work
{'entity_type': 'Foreign national/local government', 'project': 'Major water infrastructure project', 'local_custom': 'Permits substantial gifts to public officials for contract awards'}
The government of Country A that solicited Engineer A's firm to submit a proposal for a major water project, operating under local customs that permit substantial gifts to public officials in connection with awarding public works contracts.
{'type': 'client_of', 'target': 'Engineer A Non-US NSPE Member International Engineer'}
{'type': 'encouraged_association_with', 'target': 'Engineer B Local Intermediary Kickback Facilitating Engineer'}
Foreign Government Engineering Services Client
Engineer A was contacted by the government of Country A and asked to submit a proposal on a major water project being constructed in Country A
One of the acceptable 'customs' in Country A was for consultants such as engineers to give substantial gifts to public officials
Cross-Cultural Ethical Conflict Diplomatic Sidestepping — Engineer A Country A Gift-Giving Custom
Engineer A was encouraged by Engineer B to participate in 'business arrangements' involving payments to Country A officials. The BER recognized that engineers must be sensitive to cultural differences while maintaining ethical conduct, requiring diplomatic navigation rather than blunt confrontation.
Cross-Cultural Ethical Conflict Diplomatic Sidestepping Constraint
When faced with Country A's gift-giving customs and Engineer B's proposed 'business arrangements,' Engineer A was required to make every careful, delicate, and diplomatic attempt to sidestep the ethical conflict rather than either participating in the prohibited conduct or making a blunt refusal that disregards cultural context.
NSPE Code Section II.1.d; BER Case 96-5; BER Discussion
engineers who are faced with this type of ethical quandary should make every attempt to carefully, delicately, and diplomatically sidestep the matter in order to remove any appearance of an ethical conflict
At the time Engineer A was approached by Engineer B regarding 'business arrangements' for the Country A water project
Engineers need to be sensitive to these differences, practicing in a manner that is consistent with the ethical principles of the U.S. engineering community, and at the same time being respectful of the differing cultural traditions and expectations that manifest themselves in other societies
Should Engineer A provide cash payments or in-kind property to foreign government officials to obtain and retain engineering contracts, or must he refuse regardless of home-country legal permissibility and competitive disadvantage?
Engineer A, an NSPE International Member practicing outside the United States, is offered an opportunity to provide cash payments or in-kind property to foreign government officials through Engineer B's proposed 'business arrangements' in order to obtain and retain engineering contracts. Under Engineer A's home-country law, such payments are not only legal but tax-deductible. The core question is whether Engineer A must refuse these payments despite their legality and the competitive disadvantage refusal creates.
Decline to authorize, facilitate, or participate in any cash payments or in-kind property transfers to foreign officials regardless of home-country legal permissibility, tax incentives, or resulting competitive disadvantage, treating the NSPE Code prohibition as categorical and non-negotiable.
Treat home-country legal permissibility as the operative ethical standard for international practice, reasoning that NSPE membership obligations were designed for US-licensed engineers and that a non-US member practicing under a sovereign legal framework permitting such payments is not ethically bound by a higher standard than his own law requires.
Distinguish between large cash payments designed to corrupt procurement decisions and smaller culturally customary gifts or hospitality, participating only in the latter on the grounds that local gift-giving customs represent a different ethical category than outright bribery, and that the NSPE Code's prohibition targets corrupt inducements rather than cultural courtesies.
Must Engineer A comply with the full NSPE Code of Ethics in his international engineering practice by virtue of his voluntary NSPE International Membership, or may he invoke his non-US residency, home-country licensure, or the voluntary nature of membership to limit or selectively apply the Code's provisions?
Engineer A has voluntarily joined NSPE as an International Member while residing and practicing outside the United States. The question is whether that voluntary membership creates a binding ethical obligation to comply with the full NSPE Code of Ethics in his international practice — including provisions that conflict with home-country law and create competitive disadvantage — or whether the voluntary and geographically extraterritorial nature of the membership limits or qualifies the scope of his Code obligations.
Treat NSPE International Membership as an affirmative and unconditional commitment to the full Code of Ethics in all international practice, recognizing that the voluntary nature of membership strengthens rather than weakens the binding force of the obligation and that non-US residency creates no exemption.
Treat NSPE membership as binding only with respect to Code provisions that do not conflict with home-country sovereign law, reasoning that a voluntary professional association cannot impose obligations that override the legal framework of the jurisdiction in which the member is licensed and practices.
Withdraw from NSPE International Membership on the grounds that the Code's extraterritorial application creates obligations incompatible with home-country legal requirements and competitive realities, thereby removing the conflict between NSPE ethics and home-country law rather than attempting to comply with both simultaneously.
When faced with Engineer B's proposed corrupt payment arrangements and Country A's gift-giving customs, should Engineer A diplomatically sidestep the ethically conflicting expectation while preserving professional relationships, refuse participation in a manner that prioritizes ethical clarity over diplomatic sensitivity, or treat local custom as a contextual factor that qualifies his NSPE obligations?
Engineer A faces a situation in which Engineer B's proposed 'business arrangements' and Country A's prevailing gift-giving customs create an expectation that payments will be made to government officials. Engineer A must decide how to navigate this cross-cultural conflict — whether to diplomatically sidestep the ethically conflicting custom without acquiescing to it, to decline participation in a manner that may damage professional relationships, or to treat local custom as a legitimate contextual factor that modifies his ethical obligations.
Decline to participate in Engineer B's payment arrangements while communicating Engineer A's professional constraints carefully, respectfully, and without moral condemnation of local customs — offering alternative value propositions and engaging local partners through ethical means to preserve professional relationships without compromising the ethical outcome.
Decline participation in Engineer B's arrangements through direct and unambiguous communication that the payments violate Engineer A's professional ethics obligations, accepting that this may damage the professional relationship or result in loss of the contract, on the grounds that ethical clarity is more important than diplomatic preservation of a relationship premised on corrupt expectations.
Recognize Country A's gift-giving customs as a legitimate contextual factor that qualifies the application of NSPE ethics in cross-cultural practice, participating in culturally normalized payment practices on the grounds that the NSPE Code's prohibition was designed for US domestic contexts and that diplomatic sensitivity requires adapting professional conduct to host-country norms.
If Engineer A cannot make direct payments to foreign officials, may he instead route payments through Engineer B as a local intermediary, or does the NSPE Code's prohibition extend with equal force to indirect corrupt arrangements regardless of the transactional structure?
Engineer A is considering whether to route payments to Country A government officials through Engineer B as a local intermediary rather than making them directly, reasoning that indirect facilitation through a local agent may be ethically distinguishable from direct payment. The question is whether the NSPE Code's prohibition extends to indirect arrangements and whether Engineer A bears due-diligence obligations regarding how fees paid to local agents are ultimately used.
Decline to engage Engineer B in any arrangement where payments to local agents are intended or likely to be passed through to foreign officials, and apply affirmative due-diligence review to any local agent fee structures to ensure they do not function as corrupt pass-through mechanisms, treating indirect arrangements as ethically equivalent to direct payments.
Pay Engineer B standard local consulting or facilitation fees without inquiring into how those fees are ultimately used, reasoning that Engineer A's ethical responsibility extends only to his own direct conduct and that Engineer B's independent decisions about how to use legitimately paid fees are outside Engineer A's ethical control.
Engage Engineer B as a local agent under a contractual agreement that explicitly prohibits the use of Engineer A's fees for payments to government officials, relying on that contractual prohibition to satisfy Engineer A's ethical due-diligence obligation while permitting the local agent relationship to continue for legitimate facilitation purposes.
Should the NSPE Board of Ethical Review apply a uniform ethics standard to Engineer A identical to that applied to US-licensed NSPE members, or should it recognize a modified standard for international members whose home-country law permits or incentivizes conduct the Code otherwise prohibits?
The NSPE Board of Ethical Review must decide whether to apply the same ethical standard to Engineer A — an NSPE International Member whose home-country law not only permits but affirmatively incentivizes payments to foreign officials — as it would apply to a US-licensed NSPE member facing the same conduct question. The question is whether differential treatment of international members based on home-country legal permissibility is justified or whether it constitutes impermissible moral relativism that undermines the Code's universality.
Apply the full NSPE Code of Ethics uniformly to Engineer A as an NSPE International Member, treating home-country legal permissibility — including affirmative state incentivization through tax deductions — as carrying no ethical weight under the Code, and holding Engineer A to the same standard as a US-licensed NSPE member facing the same conduct question.
Apply a modified ethics standard to NSPE International Members that accounts for the sovereign legal framework of their home country, holding that Code provisions which directly conflict with home-country law — particularly where that law affirmatively incentivizes the otherwise-prohibited conduct — do not bind international members in the same way they bind US-licensed members.
Affirm that the uniform ethics standard applies to all members including international members, but recognize that the absence of enforcement mechanisms over non-US members means the Board's ruling operates as an advisory ethical determination rather than a binding disciplinary finding, leaving compliance to professional conscience without institutional consequence.
Must Engineer A treat the NSPE Code's prohibition on corrupt payments as entirely independent of his home-country legal framework — including its affirmative tax incentivization of such payments — or may he treat the degree of domestic legal encouragement as a relevant factor that qualifies or contextualizes his ethical obligations?
Engineer A's home-country law not only permits but affirmatively incentivizes payments to foreign officials through tax deductibility, creating a situation where compliance with the NSPE Code requires Engineer A to forgo both the payments and the tax benefit his competitors receive. The question is whether the NSPE Code's ethical standard operates independently of domestic legal frameworks — including frameworks that affirmatively subsidize otherwise-prohibited conduct — or whether the degree of domestic legal encouragement is a relevant variable in the ethical analysis.
Recognize that the NSPE Code's prohibition on corrupt payments operates as a self-contained ethical standard entirely independent of home-country legal frameworks, treating the legality, tax-deductibility, and affirmative state encouragement of such payments as carrying no ethical weight under the Code and conforming conduct to the higher NSPE standard regardless of domestic legal permissions.
Treat the degree of domestic legal encouragement — particularly affirmative tax incentivization — as a contextual factor that qualifies the ethical analysis, reasoning that a state's deliberate policy choice to subsidize conduct through tax deductions represents a stronger normative endorsement than mere legal tolerance and should be accorded some weight in assessing Engineer A's ethical obligations.
Comply with the NSPE Code's prohibition unconditionally while simultaneously using Engineer A's standing as an NSPE member and practicing engineer to advocate within his home country for legislative reform — such as enactment of an FCPA-equivalent — that would align domestic law with the Code's ethical standard and eliminate the competitive disadvantage that current law imposes on ethically compliant engineers.
Engineer A Home-Country Legal Permissibility Non-Excuse
Diplomatic Ethics Navigation Obligation Applied to Engineer A's Cross-Cultural Dilemma
The BER advised that Engineer A, when faced with Engineer B's kickback proposal and Country A's gift-giving customs, should make every attempt to carefully, delicately, and diplomatically sidestep the matter rather than either accepting the arrangement or engaging in culturally insensitive refusal
In this context, diplomatic navigation means Engineer A should decline the 'business arrangements' proposal in a manner that avoids passing moral judgment on Country A's customs while still removing any appearance of ethical conflict from his own conduct
Diplomatic Ethics Navigation Obligation in Cross-Cultural Practice
engineers who are faced with this type of ethical quandary should make every attempt to carefully, delicately, and diplomatically sidestep the matter in order to remove any appearance of an ethical conflict.
The diplomatic navigation obligation operates as a procedural complement to the substantive prohibition — the outcome (refusal) is required, but the manner of refusal should be culturally sensitive
Engineers need to be sensitive to these differences, practicing in a manner that is consistent with the ethical principles of the U.S. engineering community, and at the same time being respectful of the differing cultural traditions and expectations that manifest themselves in other societies.
Engaging in Foreign Government Contracting
Engineer A Corrupt Procurement Competitive Disadvantage Non-Excuse
Engineer A operates in a home-country market where corrupt payments to foreign officials are legally permitted and tax-deductible, creating a potential competitive disadvantage for engineers who comply with NSPE ethics standards.
Corrupt Procurement Competitive Disadvantage Non-Excuse Constraint
Engineer A cannot invoke competitive disadvantage in foreign markets — resulting from his refusal to make corrupt payments that competitors may make — as a justification for violating the NSPE Code of Ethics.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Cases 76-6, 96-5; BER categorical rejection of situational ethics
Throughout all international engineering procurement activities
Engineer A Cross-Cultural Corrupt Custom Diplomatic Sidestepping BER Case Discussion
Engineer A, an NSPE International Member practicing in his home country, was solicited by Country A's government for a major water project and encouraged to associate with Engineer B, who proposed to handle 'business arrangements' (kickbacks to public officials) as a condition of the contract award.
Cross-Cultural Corrupt Custom Diplomatic Sidestepping Obligation
Engineer A was obligated, when faced with Engineer B's proposed kickback 'business arrangements' and Country A's gift-giving customs, to make every attempt to carefully, delicately, and diplomatically sidestep the ethically conflicting custom rather than either acquiescing to the corrupt arrangement or engaging in culturally insensitive confrontation.
Upon receipt of Engineer B's proposal for 'business arrangements' and throughout the procurement process
Engineer A Cross-Cultural Engineering Practice Consistent Ethical Compass BER Case Discussion
Engineer A, rendering professional engineering services in Country A under a contract solicited by Country A's government, faced a context where local customs and laws permitted conduct prohibited by the NSPE Code of Ethics.
Cross-Cultural Engineering Practice Consistent Ethical Compass Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to maintain a consistent ethical compass in his international engineering practice, applying the same NSPE ethical principles in Country A as he would in any other jurisdiction, regardless of Country A's legal permissibility of corrupt payments or the cultural acceptance of gift-giving to public officials.
engineers must always follow their ethical compass on matters of this type, and there can be no doubt that as a matter of general principle, engineers must be consistent in their ethical conduct regardless of where it is the engineer is rendering professional services
Throughout Engineer A's professional engineering practice in Country A and any other international jurisdiction
While certain conduct may be acceptable or even the more generally accepted rule in other cultures, such conduct does not necessarily become acceptable for engineers who adhere to a code of ethics containing proscriptions in these areas
Engineer A Direct vs Indirect Corrupt Arrangement Factual Distinction
Engineer A needed the capability to recognize that Engineer B's proposed 'business arrangements' — though structured as an indirect intermediary arrangement rather than a direct kickback — nonetheless constituted an impermissible corrupt payment scheme under NSPE ethics standards
Engineer A's evaluation of Engineer B's proposal to handle 'business arrangements' in Country A in connection with the water project contract award
Recognition that Engineer B's proposal to 'handle business arrangements' while Engineer A managed technical matters was an indirect corrupt payment arrangement, not a legitimate local partnership
Engineer A Ethical Dilemma — Legal vs. Ethical Conduct in Foreign Markets
Ongoing — persists as long as Engineer A operates in foreign government markets under current legal and professional framework
Under the laws of Engineer A's home country, it is not illegal for individuals and companies to provide cash payments or in-kind property to public officials in foreign countries
Engineer A's decision whether to make payments to foreign officials that are domestically legal but potentially professionally unethical
Resolution through professional ethics guidance, change in law, or Engineer A's adoption of a clear conduct standard
Engineer A, a legally recognized engineer and resident in his home country and an NSPE International Member
Conflict between home country legal permissibility of foreign official payments and NSPE professional ethics obligations
Engineer A Ethics Beyond Home Country Legal Minimum
Engineer A's home country law not only permits but provides tax deductions for corrupt payments to foreign officials. The NSPE Code imposes a higher ethical standard that operates independently of and above this domestic legal framework.
Engineer A's professional obligations as an NSPE International Member require conduct that exceeds the minimum standard established by his home-country law, which permits and incentivizes corrupt payments to foreign officials — the NSPE Code establishes a higher ethical floor that operates independently of domestic legal minima.
Throughout all professional engineering practice as an NSPE International Member
Engineer A Ethics Beyond Legal Minimum International Practice
Engineer A's home-country law not only permits but provides tax deductions for corrupt payments, establishing a legal minimum that falls far below the NSPE ethical standard Engineer A is obligated to meet as an NSPE International Member.
Ethics Beyond Minimum Employment Relationship Conduct Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to conduct his international engineering practice according to a standard that exceeds the minimum required by his home-country law, recognizing that NSPE membership demands adherence to ethical standards that go beyond what is legally permitted or financially incentivized under domestic law.
Throughout all international engineering practice activities
Engineer A Ethics Beyond Legal Minimum International Practice Ethical Reasoning
Engineer A must possess the general capability to process ethical information, deliberate on choices, and exercise moral judgment when evaluating whether to participate in corrupt payment arrangements that are legal under his home-country law but prohibited by NSPE ethics.
The case requires Engineer A to exercise ethical reasoning to resolve a complex normative conflict between legal permissibility and professional ethics obligations
Required to deliberate on the ethical permissibility of corrupt payments, weighing home-country legal permissibility against NSPE membership obligations and professional ethics principles
Engineer A Foreign Corrupt Payment Prohibition Recognition
Foreign Corrupt Payment Prohibition Recognition Capability
Engineer A, as an NSPE International Member providing services to foreign governments, must possess the capability to recognize that cash payments or in-kind property transfers to foreign government officials to obtain or retain contracts constitute corrupt payments prohibited by NSPE ethics, regardless of their legality under his home-country law.
Engineer A's home country legally permits and provides tax deductions for payments to foreign officials; Engineer A must nonetheless recognize these as ethically prohibited under NSPE standards
Required to identify and refuse corrupt payment arrangements when soliciting the Country A water project contract, even though such payments are legal and tax-deductible in his home country
In fact, the laws of Engineer A's home country permit companies to claim a business tax deduction for cash payment or in-kind property to foreign officials in order to obtain or retain work.
Engineer A Foreign Official Corrupt Payment Prohibition
Engineer A is an NSPE International Member solicited by Country A's government for a major water project, where local custom and home-country law permit and incentivize cash payments to foreign officials to obtain contracts.
Foreign Official Corrupt Payment Prohibition Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to refrain from offering, authorizing, or participating in cash payments or in-kind property transfers to foreign government officials of Country A or any other foreign government for the purpose of obtaining or retaining engineering and construction contracting work, notwithstanding that such payments are legal and tax-deductible under his home-country law.
At all times during procurement, negotiation, and performance of engineering contracts with foreign governments
Engineer A Foreign Official Corrupt Payment Prohibition BER Case Discussion Section
The Discussion section reaffirms the BER's determination from BER Case 96-5 that Engineer A could not ethically proceed with the Country A water project under Engineer B's proposed 'business arrangements' involving corrupt payments to public officials.
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from authorizing, facilitating, or participating in cash payments or in-kind property transfers to Country A government officials through Engineer B's proposed 'business arrangements', regardless of the legality and tax-deductibility of such payments under his home-country law.
the NSPE Code has been clearly interpreted to prohibit the payment of any compensation in exchange for work
Upon Engineer B's proposal of 'business arrangements' as a condition of the Country A water project contract
The Board reviewed the case and determined that it would not be ethical for Engineer A to proceed with the project under these circumstances
Engineer A Foreign Official Payment Prohibition
Engineer A provides consulting, engineering, and construction contracting services to foreign national and local governments. His home country law permits and provides tax deductions for cash payments to foreign officials to obtain or retain business.
Foreign Official Payment Prohibition Constraint
Engineer A is prohibited from offering, authorizing, or participating in cash payments or in-kind property transfers to foreign government officials to obtain or retain engineering and construction contracts, notwithstanding that such payments are legally permitted and tax-deductible under his home-country law.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.5.b, III.6, III.7; BER Cases 76-6, 96-5, 87-5, 79-8, 87-4, 81-4
Throughout all international engineering and construction contracting activities
Engineer A Home-Country Law Non-Excuse NSPE Ethics Compliance
Home-Country Law Non-Excuse for NSPE Ethics Compliance Capability
Engineer A must possess the capability to recognize that the legality and tax-deductibility of corrupt payments under his home-country law does not excuse or justify violations of NSPE Code of Ethics provisions applicable to him as an NSPE International Member.
The case presents a direct conflict between home-country legal permissibility (payments are legal and tax-deductible) and NSPE ethics prohibition; Engineer A must recognize the NSPE standard governs
Required to apply NSPE ethics standards as an independent normative layer above home-country law when evaluating the permissibility of payments to Country A government officials
Engineer A Home-Country Law Non-Excuse for NSPE Ethics Compliance
Engineer A, as an NSPE International Member, needed the capability to recognize that the legality and tax-deductibility of corrupt payments under his home-country law did not excuse or justify violation of NSPE Code of Ethics provisions
Engineer A's recognition that Country A's legal permissibility of gift-giving customs does not excuse NSPE ethics violations
Recognition that NSPE ethics standards apply as an independent normative layer above and beyond home-country legal requirements
While it would seem clear that all NSPE members should and must be bound by the NSPE Code of Ethics, a basic question arises as to what are the appropriate and acceptable standards of behavior and conduct, where the NSPE member is a non-U.S. engineer who is licensed, residing, and practicing under the laws of another nation, where certain practices deemed unacceptable in the U.S. are determined to be legal and acceptable in the home country
Engineer A, while not bound by U.S. law, has made a voluntary and conscious decision to be a member of the National Society of Professional Engineers and thereby adhere to the codes and standards of practice of NSPE.
Engineer A's home country not only permits but provides tax deductions for cash payments to foreign officials, creating a legal and financial incentive that Engineer A must nonetheless refuse to act upon as an NSPE member.
Home-Country Legal Permissibility Non-Excuse for NSPE Ethics Violation Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to recognize that the legality and tax-deductibility of corrupt payments under his home-country law does not excuse or justify such payments under NSPE ethics, and must conform his conduct to the higher NSPE standard regardless of home-country legal permissions.
Whenever Engineer A's home-country law is invoked as a potential justification for conduct that would violate NSPE ethics
Engineer A Home-Country Legal Permissibility Non-Excuse BER Case Discussion Section
The Discussion section addresses Engineer A's potential defense that corrupt payment practices were legally permitted and culturally accepted in Country A, reaffirming that home-country legal permissibility does not excuse NSPE Code violations.
Engineer A was obligated to recognize that the legality of corrupt payments to Country A officials under his home-country law — and the cultural acceptance of such payments — did not constitute an ethical justification for conduct prohibited by the NSPE Code of Ethics.
Throughout Engineer A's NSPE membership and international engineering practice
The Board of Ethical Review's decision at that time was proper then and continues to be proper today
Engineer A Home-Country Market Competitive Disadvantage
Active during Engineer A's practice in home country while NSPE member; persists as long as local market norms diverge from NSPE code
Competing local engineers not bound by NSPE code
the Board recognizes the reality that Engineer A may be placed at a significant competitive disadvantage in providing services in his home country
Ethics Compliance Competitive Disadvantage State
Engineer A's competitive position in home-country engineering market due to NSPE code compliance
Not terminated — acknowledged as ongoing consequence of membership
Engineer A's decision to comply with NSPE code in a market where competitors may engage in gift-giving and payment practices
Engineer A Home Country Legal Permissibility Non-Excuse
Engineer A's home country law explicitly permits and provides tax deductions for cash payments to foreign officials. The NSPE BER has categorically rejected the argument that domestic legal permissibility excuses ethics violations.
Home-Country Legal Permissibility Non-Excuse for Ethics Violation Constraint
Engineer A cannot invoke the legal permissibility or tax-deductibility of foreign official payments under his home-country law as a defense to or excuse for a violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Cases 76-6, 96-5; BER categorical rejection of 'When in Rome' situational ethics
Throughout all international engineering practice as an NSPE International Member
Engineer A Home Country Legal Permissibility of Foreign Official Payments
Ongoing — persists for the duration of Engineer A's foreign government consulting practice under current home country law
Under the laws of Engineer A's home country, it is not illegal for individuals and companies to provide cash payments or in-kind property to public officials in foreign countries in order to obtain and retain business from those public officials
Domestic Law Permitting Foreign Official Payment State
Engineer A's business operations providing services to foreign governments
Change in home country law, voluntary adoption of international anti-corruption standards, or cessation of foreign government work
Engineer A's engagement in consulting, engineering, and construction contracting services to foreign national and local governments under home country legal framework permitting payments to foreign officials
Engineer A Home Country Payment Permissibility
Active throughout the engagement decision period; reflects ongoing home-country legal context
certain practices deemed unacceptable in the U.S. are determined to be legal and acceptable in the home country
Engineer A's home country legal framework permitting cash payments or compensation to public officials in connection with public works contracts
Not terminated — reflects ongoing home-country legal framework
One of the acceptable 'customs' in Country A was for consultants such as engineers to give substantial gifts to public officials in connection with the awarding of public works contracts
Engineer A's consideration of the public works project in home country where payment customs exist
Engineer A International Engineering Ethics Cross-Cultural Norm Conflict Navigation
International Engineering Ethics Cross-Cultural Norm Conflict Navigation Capability
Engineer A must possess the capability to identify and correctly resolve the three-way normative conflict between his home-country law (which permits and incentivizes corrupt payments), Country A's local customs (which normalize such payments), and NSPE Code of Ethics provisions (which prohibit them), maintaining NSPE ethics compliance as the governing standard.
Engineer A faces a situation where both his home-country law and Country A's customs permit or encourage corrupt payments, creating a cross-cultural normative conflict that must be resolved in favor of NSPE ethics standards
Required to navigate the conflict between home-country legal permissibility, host-country cultural normalization of corrupt payments, and NSPE membership ethics obligations when deciding how to pursue the Country A water project contract
Engineer A, a legally recognized engineer and resident in his home country and an NSPE International Member, provides consulting, engineering, and construction contracting services to foreign national and local governments.
Engineer A International Engineering Practice Engineer Dishonor Avoidance BER Case Discussion
Engineer A's potential participation in cash payments or in-kind property transfers to Country A government officials through Engineer B's proposed 'business arrangements' would constitute conduct bringing dishonor on the engineering profession in the international arena.
International Engineering Practice Engineer Dishonor Avoidance Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from participating in Engineer B's kickback 'business arrangements' in Country A, recognizing that such conduct would bring dishonor on other engineers and that this prohibition applies with equal force in international engineering practice.
Engineers must not take actions that bring dishonor on other engineers, and this is equally true when engineers are practicing in the international arena (See NSPE Code Section II.1.d.)
Upon receipt of Engineer B's proposal and throughout the Country A water project procurement
Engineer A International Engineering Procurement Competitive Integrity
Engineer A competes for engineering and construction contracting work with foreign national and local governments in an environment where corrupt payments are locally normalized and legally permitted under his home-country law.
International Engineering Procurement Competitive Integrity Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to pursue the Country A water project contract and all other foreign government engineering contracts exclusively through merit-based, qualification-based, and honest competitive means, and to refrain from any conduct — including corrupt payments, kickbacks, or improper inducements — that distorts fair competition among engineering firms.
Throughout all procurement and contract-pursuit activities with foreign governments
{'membership': 'NSPE International Member', 'license': 'Legally recognized engineer in home country', 'services': 'Consulting, engineering, and construction contracting', 'clients': 'Foreign national and local governments', 'home_country_legal_context': 'Payments to foreign officials legal and tax-deductible'}
Engineer A is an NSPE International Member and legally recognized engineer in his home country who provides consulting, engineering, and construction contracting services to foreign national and local governments. His home country's laws permit — and even provide tax deductions for — cash payments and in-kind property transfers to foreign public officials to obtain or retain business, creating a direct tension with NSPE professional ethics obligations that prohibit such inducements regardless of local legal permissibility.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Foreign Government Engineering Services Client'}
{'type': 'professional_code_obligation', 'target': 'NSPE Code of Ethics'}
International Government Consulting Engineer
Engineer A, a legally recognized engineer and resident in his home country and an NSPE International Member, provides consulting, engineering, and construction contracting services to foreign national and local governments
Engineer A International Member Ethics Standard Applicability
Active throughout Engineer A's NSPE membership while practicing in home country
a basic question arises as to what are the appropriate and acceptable standards of behavior and conduct, where the NSPE member is a non-U.S. engineer who is licensed, residing, and practicing under the laws of another nation, where certain practices deemed unacceptable in the U.S. are determined to be legal and acceptable in the home country
International Member Ethics Standard Applicability State
Engineer A as NSPE international member operating under home-country law that permits payments to foreign officials
Engineer A's NSPE international membership combined with home-country legal permissibility of payments to public officials
Engineer A Local Intermediary Corrupt Payment Facilitation Non-Participation
Engineer A provides services to foreign governments and may engage local intermediaries such as Engineer B. BER Case 96-5 directly addresses the scenario of a U.S. consulting engineer encouraged to associate with a local engineer in a foreign country where gift-giving to government officials was customary.
Local Intermediary Corrupt Payment Facilitation Non-Participation Constraint
Engineer A is prohibited from entering into, authorizing, or benefiting from arrangements with Engineer B or any other local intermediary that involve the payment of kickbacks, facilitation payments, or corrupt transfers to foreign government officials, even when such arrangements are structured to place formal legal distance between Engineer A and the payment.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.5.b, III.6, III.7; BER Case 96-5
Throughout all international engineering and construction contracting activities involving local intermediaries
Engineer A Local Intermediary Kickback Arrangement Non-Participation
Engineer B, a local engineer in Country A who had previously worked with Engineer A, was encouraged by Country A's government to associate with Engineer A's firm, creating the risk of a kickback-facilitation arrangement.
Local Intermediary Kickback Arrangement Non-Participation Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to refuse to enter into, authorize, or benefit from any arrangement with Engineer B or any other local intermediary that involves facilitating cash payments or in-kind transfers to Country A government officials as a condition or mechanism for obtaining the water project contract, even if such an arrangement is proposed or encouraged by Country A's government and is consistent with local business customs.
Prior to and during the proposal and negotiation phase for the Country A water project contract
Engineer A Local Intermediary Kickback Arrangement Recognition and Refusal
Local Intermediary Kickback Arrangement Recognition and Refusal Capability
Engineer A must possess the capability to recognize that the proposed arrangement with Engineer B — a local engineer encouraged by Country A's government to associate with Engineer A — constitutes or risks constituting a kickback arrangement, and to refuse to enter into or benefit from any such arrangement.
Country A's government encouraged Engineer A to associate with Engineer B, a local engineer who had previously worked with Engineer A on private projects; the arrangement raises kickback concerns
Required to evaluate the proposed Engineer B association arrangement and identify whether it is structured to channel payments to Country A government officials, refusing participation if so
Engineer A NAFTA GATS International Engineering Practice Context Awareness
Engineer A, as an NSPE International Member practicing in the context of NAFTA and GATS-enabled international engineering services markets, needed the capability to recognize that increased international practice opportunities do not alter professional ethics obligations
Engineer A's international consulting practice in Country A, solicited by the foreign government for a major water project in the context of liberalized international engineering services trade
Operating in the international engineering services market created by NAFTA and GATS while maintaining NSPE ethics compliance
Engineers need to be sensitive to these differences, practicing in a manner that is consistent with the ethical principles of the U.S. engineering community
Engineer A NSPE Ethics Norm Competence International Practice
Engineer A must possess the capability to store, recognize, and apply NSPE Code of Ethics provisions relevant to international practice — including anti-corruption provisions — and to recognize when those provisions conflict with home-country legal norms, resolving such conflicts in favor of NSPE ethics standards.
Engineer A's NSPE International Membership creates a set of normative obligations he must be able to store, retrieve, and apply in international practice contexts
Required to identify and apply the specific NSPE Code provisions prohibiting corrupt payments to foreign officials, recognizing their applicability to his international government contracting activities
Engineer A NSPE Extraterritorial Ethics Jurisdiction Self-Application
NSPE Extraterritorial Ethics Jurisdiction Self-Application Capability
Engineer A, as an NSPE International Member, must possess the capability to recognize that NSPE Code of Ethics provisions apply to his professional activities in foreign countries, including his consulting, engineering, and construction contracting services to foreign national and local governments.
Engineer A is a non-U.S. engineer practicing in his home country and abroad; his NSPE International Membership creates ethics obligations that follow him across jurisdictions
Required to identify and apply relevant NSPE Code provisions to his international government contracting activities in Country A, treating NSPE membership as creating binding extraterritorial ethics obligations
Engineer A NSPE International Member Ethics Applicability
Ongoing — persists for the duration of Engineer A's NSPE International Membership while conducting foreign government work
Engineer A's status as NSPE International Member operating under home country law that permits foreign official payments
NSPE clarification of extraterritorial ethics applicability, Engineer A's relinquishment of membership, or alignment of domestic law with professional ethics standards
provides consulting, engineering, and construction contracting services to foreign national and local governments
Engineer A holding NSPE International Membership while operating under home country law that permits payments to foreign officials that NSPE ethics standards may prohibit
Engineer A NSPE International Member Extraterritorial Ethics Compliance
Engineer A is a non-U.S. resident engineer holding NSPE International Membership who provides engineering services to foreign governments under conditions where local law permits conduct that NSPE ethics prohibits.
NSPE International Member Extraterritorial Ethics Compliance Obligation
Engineer A, as an NSPE International Member, is obligated to comply with all applicable NSPE Code of Ethics provisions in his international engineering practice with foreign national and local governments, and may not invoke his non-U.S. residency, his home-country licensure, or his practice location outside the United States as grounds for exemption from NSPE ethical requirements.
Throughout all international engineering practice activities undertaken as an NSPE International Member
Engineer A NSPE International Member Uniform Ethics Standard
Engineer A is a legally recognized engineer in his home country and an NSPE International Member providing services to foreign governments. The BER has established that all NSPE members — domestic and international — are bound by the same ethics code.
NSPE International Member Uniform Ethics Standard Constraint
Engineer A, as an NSPE International Member, is bound by the same uniform NSPE Code of Ethics standards as domestic U.S. members and cannot apply a relaxed or geographically adjusted ethics standard based on his home-country legal environment or local business customs.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Cases 76-6, 96-5; NSPE International Membership terms
Throughout the duration of NSPE International Membership
{'license': 'Non-U.S. professional engineering license', 'nspe_membership': 'Voluntary NSPE member', 'jurisdiction': 'Home country (non-U.S.)', 'specialty': 'Water infrastructure consulting'}
A non-U.S. engineer licensed, residing, and practicing in their home country who is an NSPE member and was solicited by Country A's government for a major water project, facing pressure to associate with Engineer B who would handle improper 'business arrangements' (gifts/kickbacks to public officials). Engineer A must adhere to NSPE Code despite local customs permitting such payments.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Country A Government'}
{'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer B Local Intermediary Kickback Facilitating Engineer'}
Non-US NSPE Member International Engineer
Engineer A, while not bound by U.S. law, has made a voluntary and conscious decision to be a member of the National Society of Professional Engineers
Engineer A may be placed at a significant competitive disadvantage in providing services in his home country
Engineer A was encouraged to associate with and retain Engineer B
Engineer A Public Welfare Non-Subordination to Corrupt Procurement Gain
Engineer A provides engineering services for major public infrastructure projects (water projects) for foreign governments, creating a potential rationalization that corrupt payments serve the public good by enabling beneficial projects.
Public Welfare Non-Subordination to Corrupt Procurement Gain Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to recognize that the public welfare benefit of major infrastructure projects such as water systems does not justify or excuse corrupt procurement practices, and must refuse to rationalize participation in corrupt payment schemes on the grounds that the resulting project would benefit the public.
Whenever Engineer A evaluates whether to participate in corrupt procurement arrangements for public infrastructure projects
Engineer A Situational Ethics Non-Practice International Engineering BER Case Discussion
Engineer A faced pressure to conform to Country A's gift-giving customs for public officials, which were legally permitted and culturally accepted in Country A, but prohibited under the NSPE Code of Ethics.
Situational Ethics Non-Practice in International Engineering Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from applying situational ethics — specifically the 'When in Rome' reasoning — to justify participation in Country A's corrupt payment customs, recognizing that NSPE ethical obligations are not geographically variable and that permitting such variation would weaken protections for citizens of host countries.
Throughout Engineer A's engagement with Country A's government water project procurement
If the Board was to decide otherwise, it would not be much of a leap to suggest that engineers practicing in another country could engage in practices that could weaken the minimal protections afforded to the citizens of that country because engineers would only be bound by the requirements, however minimal that might exist in that country
In the seventies, the Board of Ethical Review noted that the so-called 'When in Rome...' rule, whereby engineers could engage in the legal and ethical practices of the host country was not consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics (see BER Case 76-6)
Engineer A Voluntary Membership Competitive Disadvantage Acceptance BER Case Discussion
Engineer A faced significant competitive disadvantage in his home country by adhering to NSPE ethics standards that prohibited the corrupt payment practices accepted by competing local engineers, but had voluntarily chosen NSPE membership.
Voluntary Membership Competitive Disadvantage Acceptance Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to accept the competitive disadvantage resulting from NSPE ethics compliance in his home country market, having voluntarily and consciously chosen NSPE membership and thereby accepted the full scope of NSPE ethical obligations including those imposing competitive costs.
while the Board recognizes the reality that Engineer A may be placed at a significant competitive disadvantage in providing services in his home country, as noted before, Engineer A has voluntarily chosen to become a member of NSPE and is bound by the Code
Engineer A, while not bound by U.S. law, has made a voluntary and conscious decision to be a member of the National Society of Professional Engineers and thereby adhere to the codes and standards of practice of NSPE
Engineer A Voluntary NSPE Membership Ethics Obligation
From the moment Engineer A voluntarily joined NSPE as an international member, persisting through the current engagement decision
Voluntary Professional Society Ethics Obligation Acceptance State
Engineer A's relationship to NSPE Code of Ethics as an international member practicing in home country
Not terminated — persists as long as Engineer A remains an NSPE member
Engineer A has voluntarily chosen to become a member of NSPE and is bound by the Code
Engineer A's voluntary application for and acceptance of NSPE international membership
Engineer A When-in-Rome Situational Ethics Rejection
Engineer A, as an NSPE International Member, possessed the capability to recognize and reject 'When in Rome' situational ethics reasoning that would have justified participation in Country A's gift-giving customs and Engineer B's 'business arrangements'
Engineer A faced pressure from Country A government customs and Engineer B's proposal to handle 'business arrangements'; the BER affirmed that 'When in Rome' reasoning is incompatible with NSPE ethics
Recognition that Country A's gift-giving customs and Engineer B's proposed 'business arrangements' could not be justified by host-country acceptability, and that NSPE ethics standards apply regardless of local custom
In the seventies, the Board of Ethical Review noted that the so-called 'When in Rome...' rule...was not consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics
Engineer A's voluntary NSPE membership decision before Present ethical question about applicable standards
{'license': 'Local Country A engineering license', 'locality': 'Country A (host country)', 'prior_relationship': 'Previous private project collaboration with Engineer A'}
A local engineer in Country A who had previously worked with Engineer A on private projects and was encouraged by Country A's government to associate with Engineer A's firm. Engineer B proposed to handle 'business arrangements' (i.e., gifts/kickbacks to public officials) if the project was awarded to Engineer A's firm, while Engineer A would manage technical matters.
{'type': 'intermediary_for', 'target': 'Country A Government Officials'}
{'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer A Non-US NSPE Member International Engineer'}
Local Intermediary Kickback Facilitating Engineer
Engineer A was encouraged to associate with and retain Engineer B, a local engineer in Country A, who Engineer A had worked with in the past on private projects
Engineer in BER 76-6 Making Direct Kickbacks
Engineer in BER 76-6 Making Direct Kickbacks → NSPE 'When in Rome' Rejection
Engineer in BER 96-5 Proceeding Under Ethically Conflicted Arrangement
Engineer in BER 96-5 Proceeding Under Ethically Conflicted Arrangement → BER 96-5 Ruling Issued
Ethics Code as Higher Standard Than Legal Minimum Applied to Country A Legal Permissibility Defense
Jurisdiction-Specific Ethics Compliance Obligation
The BER held that even though gift-giving to public officials may not technically have been a violation of law in Country A, Engineer A's NSPE ethics obligations prohibited the conduct — the legal permissibility of the practice in Country A did not discharge Engineer A's ethics code obligations
The legal-ethics distinction operates here in a cross-national context: the relevant legal floor is Country A's law, but the ethics ceiling is the NSPE Code, and compliance with Country A's law does not satisfy NSPE membership obligations
Ethics Code as Higher Standard Than Legal Minimum
Engineer A recognized that the giving of such gifts may be a violation of U.S. law -- although it might not technically have been a violation of the law in Country A.
The ethics code's higher standard prevails over legal permissibility in the host jurisdiction; the NSPE Code sets a floor that is independent of and higher than any particular jurisdiction's legal requirements
While certain conduct may be acceptable or even the more generally accepted rule in other cultures, such conduct does not necessarily become acceptable for engineers who adhere to a code of ethics containing proscriptions in these areas.
Ethics Code as Higher Standard Than Legal Minimum Invoked in Engineer A International Bribery Context
Cash payments or in-kind property to foreign government officials to obtain consulting and construction contracts
Competitive market access in host country
Even though Engineer A's home country law permits and provides tax deductions for cash payments to foreign officials to obtain work, NSPE membership obligations establish a higher ethical standard that prohibits such payments regardless of their domestic legal permissibility
In this international context, the ethics-as-higher-standard principle requires Engineer A to refuse corrupt payment arrangements that are legally sanctioned under home-country law, because NSPE ethics represent a floor of conduct that is not discharged by legal compliance alone
NSPE ethics obligations override home-country legal permissiveness; legal permissibility of corrupt payments does not constitute ethical authorization
Fairness in Professional Competition Invoked Against Kickback-Based Contract Award
Competitive procurement for consulting, engineering, and construction contracting services to foreign governments
Competitive disadvantage in markets where bribery is normalized
Engineer A's participation in cash payments or in-kind property transfers to foreign officials to obtain work undermines fair and open competition in professional engineering procurement by substituting financial corruption for merit-based selection, disadvantaging engineers who refuse to participate in corrupt payment arrangements
Fair competition in engineering procurement requires that contracts be awarded on the basis of qualifications and merit; corrupt payments corrupt the competitive process and constitute an unfair competitive advantage that violates the principle of fair and open competition
Fairness in competition is not culturally relative; corrupt payment arrangements violate fair competition principles regardless of their prevalence or legal status in the host or home jurisdiction
Foreign National and Local Governments Engineering Services Client
{'entity_type': 'Foreign national and local governments', 'role_in_payment_context': 'Public officials receiving or potentially receiving payments/in-kind property to award or retain engineering contracts'}
The foreign national and local governments are the clients retaining Engineer A's consulting, engineering, and construction contracting services. Their officials are the recipients of cash payments or in-kind property transfers that are legally permitted under Engineer A's home country law but ethically problematic under NSPE standards.
{'type': 'service_recipient', 'target': 'Engineer A International Government Consulting Engineer'}
cash payments or in-kind property to public officials in foreign countries in order to obtain and retain business from those public officials
GATS (General Agreement on Trade in Services)
with the increase in international engineering practice as a result of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), engineers are being exposed to differing design selection methods
NSPE Board of Ethical Review to frame the growing importance of international ethics guidance
Cited alongside NAFTA as a driver of increased international engineering practice that exposes engineers to differing design selection methods and culturally divergent procurement customs, contextualising the ethical dilemma faced by Engineer A.
Home Country Law Permitting Payments to Foreign Officials
Legislature of Engineer A's home country
Home Country Statute Permitting Cash Payments and In-Kind Property to Foreign Public Officials
Foreign Business Payments Permissibility Law
Engineer A as justification for providing payments to foreign officials; BER in analyzing the legal-vs-ethical distinction
Establishes that Engineer A's conduct is legally permissible under domestic law, forming the basis of the ethical tension: legal permissibility under home-country law does not resolve the question of ethical permissibility under the NSPE Code
Home Country Tax Deduction for Payments to Foreign Officials
Tax authority of Engineer A's home country
Home Country Tax Law Allowing Deduction for Payments to Foreign Public Officials
Engineer A as additional legal grounding for the practice; BER in analyzing the scope of professional ethics obligations beyond domestic law
Reinforces the legal permissibility of the payments by providing a fiscal incentive (tax deductibility), further underscoring the gap between legal and ethical standards that the BER must address
Honesty Principle Invoked Against Corrupt Procurement Participation by Engineer A
Professional procurement process for consulting, engineering, and construction contracting services to foreign governments
Engineer A's participation in cash payments or in-kind property transfers to foreign officials to obtain work constitutes a form of dishonesty in the professional procurement process — misrepresenting the basis on which engineering services are being selected (merit vs. corrupt inducement) and deceiving the public interest in transparent, merit-based professional selection
Honesty in professional practice extends beyond truthful statements to encompass honest dealing in the procurement process; corrupt payments to secure contracts are fundamentally dishonest because they substitute financial inducement for merit-based selection
Honesty obligations apply to the substance of professional procurement, not merely to verbal or written representations; corrupt payment arrangements violate honesty regardless of their legal status
Host-Country Citizen Minimal Protection Non-Degradation — BER Categorical Rejection Rationale
The BER articulated this rationale as a forward-looking institutional constraint on its own interpretive authority — establishing that the 'When in Rome' rule cannot be adopted because doing so would create a mechanism for eroding citizen protections in countries with lower regulatory standards.
Host-Country Citizen Minimal Protection Non-Degradation Constraint
The BER was constrained by its own institutional reasoning to reject any interpretation of the NSPE Code that would permit engineers practicing abroad to be bound only by host-country minimums, because such an interpretation would allow engineers to weaken the minimal protections afforded to citizens of host countries wherever local standards are lower than NSPE ethical standards.
NSPE BER Discussion — categorical rejection of situational ethics
it would not be much of a leap to suggest that engineers practicing in another country could engage in practices that could weaken the minimal protections afforded to the citizens of that country because engineers would only be bound by the requirements, however minimal that might exist in that country
At the time of the BER's deliberation and as an ongoing institutional precedent
We believe that such an approach is wholly unacceptable and refuse to follow that path
Host-Country Citizen Minimal Protection Non-Degradation — Engineer A Country A
BER used this rationale to categorically reject the 'When in Rome' rule, reasoning that allowing engineers to be bound only by host-country minimums would permit erosion of citizen protections wherever local standards are lower than NSPE ethical standards.
Engineer A was prohibited from engaging in practices in Country A that would weaken the minimal legal protections afforded to Country A citizens, even if such practices were legally permitted under Country A law — the BER rejected the argument that engineers practicing abroad are bound only by host-country minimums.
NSPE BER Discussion — categorical rejection of situational ethics; BER Cases 76-6, 96-5
Throughout Engineer A's international engineering practice in Country A
Host-Country Law Permits Payments → BER Universal Membership Ruling
International Engineering Practice Profession Dishonor Avoidance — BER Precedent Continuity
The BER cited Code Section II.1.d specifically in the international practice context, establishing that the profession-dishonor prohibition is not geographically limited and applies with equal force to all NSPE members regardless of where they practice.
International Engineering Practice Profession Dishonor Avoidance Constraint
The BER was constrained by NSPE Code Section II.1.d and its own precedent in BER Cases 76-6 and 96-5 to find that Engineer A's proposed participation in corrupt payment arrangements in Country A would bring dishonor upon the engineering profession, with this finding required to be consistent across domestic and international practice contexts.
Earlier and subsequent BER cases also support this view (See BER Case Nos. 87-5, 79-8, 87-4, 81-4)
International Engineering Practice Profession Dishonor Avoidance — Engineer A Country A Water Project
The BER explicitly invoked Code Section II.1.d in the context of international engineering practice, establishing that the prohibition on conduct that dishonors the profession applies globally and was violated by Engineer A's proposed participation in corrupt payment arrangements.
Engineer A was prohibited from participating in Engineer B's 'business arrangements' involving payments to Country A officials because such conduct would bring dishonor upon other engineers and the engineering profession, with this prohibition applying with equal force in international practice as in domestic practice under NSPE Code Section II.1.d.
Throughout Engineer A's international engineering practice
engineers must always follow their ethical compass on matters of this type
Joining NSPE as International Member → BER Universal Membership Ruling
Local Custom Non-Excuse Principle Invoked Against Home-Country Tax Deduction Defense
Home-country tax deduction for cash payments or in-kind property to foreign officials
Client relationship preservation with foreign governments
The fact that Engineer A's home country not only permits but affirmatively incentivizes corrupt payments through tax deductions does not constitute a valid ethical defense for Engineer A's participation in such payments, because local legal and fiscal custom cannot excuse conduct that violates NSPE professional ethics
The tax-deductibility of corrupt payments under home-country law represents the most permissive possible legal environment, yet even this affirmative legal incentive cannot override NSPE ethics obligations — demonstrating that professional ethics are not culturally or legally relative
Professional ethics obligations are not discharged by legal permissiveness or fiscal incentivization of prohibited conduct; the higher standard of professional ethics applies regardless of local legal and cultural normalization
Local Custom Non-Excuse Principle Reaffirmed Across Multiple BER Precedents
Cultural sensitivity in international practice
The BER reaffirmed through citation to BER Cases 76-6, 96-5, 87-5, 79-8, 87-4, and 81-4 that the 'When in Rome' rule — permitting engineers to follow local customs that violate NSPE ethics standards — has been consistently rejected since the 1970s, and that this rejection remains proper and applicable to the present case involving a non-U.S. member
The local custom non-excuse principle has accumulated extensive precedential support across decades of BER decisions; its application to non-U.S. members practicing in their home countries represents an extension of the principle's reach rather than a departure from its core logic
Local custom is acknowledged as a real and legitimate cultural phenomenon deserving of sensitivity, but it does not constitute a valid defense to ethics code violations; the two obligations (cultural sensitivity and ethics compliance) operate at different levels — one governs manner, the other governs substance
NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement)
Governments of the United States, Canada, and Mexico
Cited as a driver of increased international engineering practice that exposes engineers to differing design selection methods and culturally divergent procurement customs, contextualising the ethical dilemma faced by Engineer A.
NAFTA and GATS agreements before BER Case 96-5 discussion of international engineering practice
National Society of Professional Engineers
While it would seem clear that all NSPE members should and must be bound by the NSPE Code of Ethics
The NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers is based upon basic and well accepted moral and ethical principles of professional conduct for the protection of the public health and safety.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in evaluating Engineer A's conduct
Primary normative authority establishing that all NSPE members — including non-U.S. engineers practicing in their home countries — are bound by the same ethical standards prohibiting payments in exchange for work, regardless of local law or custom.
National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE)
Engineer A (NSPE International Member) and the Board of Ethical Review in evaluating the ethical permissibility of payments to foreign officials
Primary normative authority governing Engineer A's professional obligations as an NSPE International Member, including obligations regarding bribery, integrity, and conduct in international business dealings regardless of local law permissibility
NSPE Membership Ethics Extraterritorial Applicability Invoked for Engineer A International Practice
Engineer A's consulting, engineering, and construction contracting services to foreign national and local governments
Engineer A's status as an NSPE International Member means that NSPE ethical obligations — including the prohibition on corrupt payments to obtain work — apply to Engineer A's international consulting and construction contracting practice in foreign countries, even though those countries' laws (and Engineer A's home country law) permit such payments
NSPE International Membership is a voluntary professional commitment that carries the full weight of NSPE ethical obligations into international practice contexts, regardless of the legal regime of the host or home country
NSPE Membership Ethics Obligation Extraterritorial Applicability Principle
NSPE membership obligations function as a universal professional floor that applies extraterritorially; the permissiveness of home or host country law does not reduce or eliminate those obligations
NSPE Membership Ethics Extraterritorial Applicability Reaffirmed for Non-US Member
The BER extended the extraterritorial applicability principle — previously applied to U.S. engineers practicing abroad — to non-U.S. NSPE members practicing in their own home countries, holding that NSPE membership obligations apply to Engineer A's practice in Country A regardless of his non-U.S. residency and licensure
The extraterritorial applicability principle is extended beyond its prior application (U.S. engineers abroad) to encompass non-U.S. engineers practicing in their home countries — the principle's reach is co-extensive with NSPE membership, not with U.S. licensure or residency
While the facts in earlier BER cases are somewhat different than the present case because they involved U.S. licensed engineers practicing abroad and not individuals who were licensed, residing, and practicing in their native country, the BER firmly believes that it would be a major error for NSPE to apply one standard of conduct to one set of NSPE members and another standard of conduct to another set of NSPE members
NSPE membership obligations prevail over geographic and cultural arguments; the voluntary nature of membership is the key to resolving the tension
NSPE Uniform Cross-Membership Standard Enforcement Decision
Established through prior BER cases (76-6, 96-5) and reaffirmed in the present case; persists as institutional policy
the BER firmly believes that it would be a major error for NSPE to apply one standard of conduct to one set of NSPE members and another standard of conduct to another set of NSPE members
Uniform Cross-Membership Ethics Standard Enforcement State
NSPE BER's institutional determination that all members — domestic and international — are bound by the same ethics code
Not terminated — represents ongoing institutional policy
all NSPE members should be bound by the same high standards, notwithstanding national borders or cultural differences
BER consideration of whether international members should be held to different standards than domestic members
NSPE 'When in Rome' Rejection → Additional Precedents Established
NSPE Board of Ethical Review through accumulated case precedent
Professional Norms on Personal Misconduct and Engineer Integrity
BER in analyzing whether legally permissible conduct can still violate professional ethics standards
Provides the framework for evaluating whether Engineer A's payments to foreign officials — though legal under home country law — constitute a violation of professional ethics obligations regarding honesty, integrity, and conduct unbecoming a professional engineer
Professional Honor Preservation Invoked in Engineer A International Practice Context
Engineering profession's international reputation
The BER invoked the prohibition on actions that bring dishonor on other engineers as equally applicable in the international arena, holding that Engineer A's participation in the kickback arrangement would bring dishonor on the engineering profession regardless of its local acceptability
Professional dignity norms are not geographically bounded; conduct that would bring dishonor domestically brings equal dishonor internationally, and the international context does not create an exception to NSPE Code Section II.1.d.
Engineers must not take actions that bring dishonor on other engineers, and this is equally true when engineers are practicing in the international arena (See NSPE Code Section II.1.d.).
The BER resolved the tension by treating professional honor as a universal professional obligation that travels with the engineer, not a culturally relative standard
Providing Cash Payments to Foreign Officials
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked Against Corrupt Engineering Procurement in Foreign Government Projects
Consulting, engineering, and construction contracting services to foreign national and local governments for public infrastructure
Client relationship with foreign governments
Corrupt payments to foreign government officials to obtain engineering contracts for major public infrastructure projects (such as water projects) undermine the integrity of the engineering selection process and ultimately harm the public welfare by substituting financial corruption for merit-based selection of the most qualified engineer to serve the public
Public welfare is harmed not only by unsafe engineering but also by corrupt procurement processes that prevent the most qualified engineers from serving the public and that divert public resources to corrupt payments rather than engineering quality
Public welfare obligations extend to the integrity of the procurement process itself; corrupt payments that undermine merit-based selection of engineers for public projects violate the paramount obligation to serve public welfare
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked as Rationale for Consistent International Ethics Standards
Competitive disadvantage to international members
The BER grounded its rejection of situational ethics in the public welfare rationale — permitting geographic variation in ethics standards would enable engineers to exploit weaker regulatory environments and thereby weaken the minimal protections afforded to citizens of host countries, making public welfare protection the ultimate justification for uniform ethics application
Public welfare paramount operates here not as a direct safety obligation but as the foundational justification for the uniform ethics standard — the citizens of host countries with weaker regulations deserve the same protection from engineering misconduct as citizens of countries with stronger regulations
Public welfare protection of host-country citizens prevails over competitive and cultural considerations as the paramount engineering ethics obligation
Would it be ethical for Engineer A, an NSPE International Member governed by the laws of his home country and the local practices, to provide cash payments or in-kind property to public officials in foreign countries in order to obtain and retain business from those public officials?
Does Engineer A's voluntary acceptance of NSPE membership create a binding ethical obligation that supersedes the legal permissions of his home country, and if so, does NSPE have any enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance for international members who are not subject to US law?
If Engineer A refuses to make payments to foreign officials while competitors from his home country and other nations freely do so, does the NSPE Code of Ethics inadvertently harm the public welfare of the foreign client nations by systematically excluding the most ethically scrupulous engineers from winning contracts in those markets?
Should the BER have addressed whether Engineer A has an affirmative obligation to advocate within his home country for legislative reform prohibiting payments to foreign officials, rather than simply refraining from making such payments himself?
Does the existence of international trade frameworks such as NAFTA and GATS, which facilitate cross-border engineering practice, create an implicit expectation that participating engineers will adhere to a baseline international ethics standard, and how should that standard be defined and enforced in the absence of a global engineering ethics body?
Does the Diplomatic Ethics Navigation Obligation — which acknowledges that engineers must navigate cross-cultural norms with sensitivity — conflict with the Situational Ethics Rejection principle, which categorically forbids adjusting ethical standards to local custom, and how should Engineer A resolve that tension in practice without either capitulating to corruption or causing diplomatic harm to ongoing project relationships?
Does the Uniform Ethics Standard principle — requiring identical treatment of all NSPE members regardless of nationality — conflict with the Public Welfare Paramount principle when rigidly uniform application systematically disadvantages ethical engineers in foreign markets, potentially leaving those markets served exclusively by less scrupulous competitors and thereby reducing public welfare outcomes for host-country citizens?
Does the Ethics Code as Higher Standard Than Legal Minimum principle conflict with the Fairness in Professional Competition principle when Engineer A's home-country competitors — who are not NSPE members and face no equivalent ethics code constraint — are legally permitted to make payments that Engineer A must refuse, thereby creating a structurally unequal competitive field that the ethics code itself produces?
Does the Corrupt Payment Prohibition — which bars Engineer A from making payments directly or through intermediaries — conflict with the Professional Honor Preservation principle when refusing to participate in locally normalized payment practices may cause Engineer A to be perceived as culturally disrespectful or commercially unreliable by foreign government clients, thereby damaging the broader reputation of ethical engineering practice in those markets?
From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A's voluntary acceptance of NSPE membership create a categorical duty to refuse corrupt payments to foreign officials regardless of whether home-country law permits such payments, and does that duty hold even when compliance produces a competitive disadvantage?
From a consequentialist perspective, do the aggregate harms produced by normalizing cash payments to foreign officials — including erosion of public trust, misallocation of infrastructure resources, and degradation of competitive fairness across the engineering profession — outweigh any short-term business gains Engineer A might secure, thereby justifying the Board's categorical prohibition even for members operating in permissive legal environments?
From a virtue ethics perspective, does Engineer A's willingness to make cash payments to foreign officials — even when legally permissible at home — reflect a failure of professional integrity and honesty that is incompatible with the character traits the NSPE Code of Ethics demands of all members, irrespective of jurisdiction?
From a deontological perspective, does the NSPE Board of Ethical Review have a duty to apply a single, uniform ethics standard to all members — domestic and international alike — and would any differential treatment of international members based on home-country legal permissibility constitute an impermissible form of moral relativism that undermines the universalizability of the Code's core prohibitions?
If Engineer A's home country had enacted legislation equivalent to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act — making payments to foreign officials illegal domestically — would the ethical analysis change in substance, or does the Board's conclusion rest on principles that are entirely independent of domestic legal prohibitions?
What if Engineer A had declined NSPE international membership specifically to avoid being bound by the Code's prohibition on payments to foreign officials — would that choice have been ethically defensible, and does the voluntary nature of NSPE membership strengthen or complicate the Board's conclusion that Engineer A is fully bound by the Code?
If Engineer A had routed the payments to foreign officials through Engineer B as a local intermediary rather than making them directly, would the Board's ethical conclusion have differed, and what does the answer reveal about the Code's treatment of indirect corrupt arrangements versus direct ones?
If the expansion of international trade frameworks such as NAFTA and GATS had produced binding multilateral anti-corruption standards that explicitly governed Engineer A's cross-border practice at the time of the case, would the Board have needed to rely solely on the NSPE Code of Ethics, and does the absence of such binding international standards at the time make the Board's ethics-first reasoning more or less compelling?
Single Ethics Standard Cross-Member-Class Non-Differentiation — NSPE BER Engineer A Decision
The BER explicitly addressed the institutional question of whether different standards should apply to domestic vs. international NSPE members, determining that applying different standards would be a major institutional error undermining the Code's global meaning.
The BER was constrained to apply the same NSPE Code of Ethics standard to Engineer A as a non-U.S. NSPE International Member as it would apply to U.S.-licensed engineers practicing abroad, prohibiting the creation of a two-tiered ethics system differentiated by member national origin or home-country legal environment, as required by NSPE Code Section III.8.a.
NSPE Code Section III.8.a; BER Discussion
At the time of the BER's deliberation on Engineer A's case
Situational Ethics Rejection Applied to International Kickback Context
The BER rejected the argument that Engineer A's kickback obligations should vary based on Country A's legal and cultural acceptance of gift-giving to public officials, holding that situational ethics cannot be practiced in professional engineering any more than in technical practice, and that permitting geographic variation would erode citizen protections in weaker regulatory jurisdictions
The situational ethics rejection principle operates here to close the 'When in Rome' loophole definitively — the BER treats the consistency of ethical conduct across geographic contexts as a categorical requirement, not a presumption subject to override by local conditions
No genuine tension — the BER treats situational ethics as categorically impermissible, with the public welfare rationale (preventing erosion of citizen protections) providing the justificatory basis
engineers must always follow their ethical compass on matters of this type, and there can be no doubt that as a matter of general principle, engineers must be consistent in their ethical conduct regardless of where it is the engineer is rendering professional services.
Situational Ethics Technical-Professional Practice Parity Prohibition — Engineer A International Practice
The BER used the technical-professional parity argument as a foundational rationale for categorically rejecting the 'When in Rome' rule, establishing that the universality of engineering technical standards implies an equivalent universality of professional ethical standards.
Situational Ethics Technical-Professional Practice Parity Prohibition Constraint
Engineer A was prohibited from applying situational ethics to justify participation in Country A's gift-giving customs, with the BER establishing that ethical standards cannot be treated as context-variable in professional practice any more than physical laws can be treated as context-variable in technical practice.
Uniform Ethics Standard Invoked by BER Against Differential Member Treatment
NSPE membership ethics adjudication framework
The BER explicitly rejected any framework that would apply a lower or different ethics standard to non-U.S. NSPE members (such as Engineer A) than to U.S.-licensed members, holding that all NSPE members are bound by the same high standards regardless of national borders or cultural differences
In this context, uniform application means that Engineer A's status as a non-U.S. engineer residing and practicing in his home country does not create a basis for applying a more permissive ethics standard; the BER's adjudicative framework must be identical for all members
Uniform Ethics Standard Across Member Classes Principle
The BER resolved the tension by holding that voluntary membership acceptance forecloses differential treatment arguments; competitive disadvantage is acknowledged but does not override the uniformity obligation
Voluntary Membership Ethics Acceptance Invoked Against Engineer A Competitive Disadvantage Defense
Engineer A's kickback refusal obligation
Competitive disadvantage in home country market
Economic viability of Engineer A's practice
The BER acknowledged that Engineer A would face significant competitive disadvantage in his home country by adhering to NSPE ethics standards that prohibit kickbacks, but held that his voluntary and conscious decision to join NSPE bound him to the Code regardless of that disadvantage
Voluntary membership is treated as informed consent to all ethics obligations, including those that create competitive disadvantage; the consent-based foundation of the obligation makes competitive hardship arguments legally and ethically unavailing
Voluntary Professional Membership Ethics Acceptance Principle
The BER resolved the tension in favor of ethics obligation, treating voluntary consent as a sufficient basis to override competitive hardship concerns
while the Board recognizes the reality that Engineer A may be placed at a significant competitive disadvantage in providing services in his home country, as noted before, Engineer A has voluntarily chosen to become a member of NSPE and is bound by the Code.
Voluntary Membership Full Code Acceptance Non-Selective Compliance — Engineer A NSPE Membership
The BER closed its opinion by acknowledging Engineer A's competitive disadvantage but affirming that voluntary membership constitutes unconditional Code acceptance — the competitive disadvantage does not create an exception to Code compliance.
Engineer A's voluntary and conscious decision to join NSPE constituted unconditional acceptance of the full NSPE Code of Ethics, constraining Engineer A from invoking competitive disadvantage, home-country legal permissibility, or cultural context as grounds for selective non-compliance with any Code provision.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Discussion; BER Cases 76-6, 96-5
From the date of Engineer A's voluntary NSPE membership acceptance through all subsequent professional practice
'When in Rome' rule rejection (BER Case 76-6, 1976) before Present case ruling that all NSPE members are bound by same standards