ProEthica Case 91 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.118087
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

Additional Precedents Established
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.133700
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Additional Precedents Established → Late-1980s Reinforcement Rulings
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.133943
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

BER 96-5 Ruling Issued
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.133771
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

BER Case 76-6
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 76-6
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:13:12.775988+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:13:12.775988+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: 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).
textreferences: 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).
textreferences: The Board of Ethical Review's decision at that time was proper then and continues to be proper today.
textreferences: the facts in BER Case 76-6 involved a direct 'kickback' between engineer and public official
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review to establish continuity of ethical principle across decades
usedincontext: 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.
version: 1976
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.120449
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

BER Case 76-6 decision (1976) before BER Cases 79-8, 81-4, 87-4, 87-5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.134072
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

BER Case 76-6 ruling (1976) equals Ongoing principle applied in present case
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.134282
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

BER Case 79-8
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 79-8
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:13:12.775988+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:13:12.775988+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: Earlier and subsequent BER cases also support this view (See BER Case Nos. 87-5, 79-8, 87-4, 81-4).
textreferences: Earlier and subsequent BER cases also support this view (See BER Case Nos. 87-5, 79-8, 87-4, 81-4).
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review as corroborating authority
usedincontext: 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.
version: 1979
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.120722
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

BER Case 81-4
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 81-4
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:13:12.775988+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:13:12.775988+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: Earlier and subsequent BER cases also support this view (See BER Case Nos. 87-5, 79-8, 87-4, 81-4).
textreferences: Earlier and subsequent BER cases also support this view (See BER Case Nos. 87-5, 79-8, 87-4, 81-4).
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review as corroborating authority
usedincontext: 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.
version: 1981
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.120990
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

BER Case 87-4
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 87-4
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:13:12.775988+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:13:12.775988+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: Earlier and subsequent BER cases also support this view (See BER Case Nos. 87-5, 79-8, 87-4, 81-4).
textreferences: Earlier and subsequent BER cases also support this view (See BER Case Nos. 87-5, 79-8, 87-4, 81-4).
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review as corroborating authority
usedincontext: 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.
version: 1987
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.120858
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

BER Case 87-5
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 87-5
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:13:12.775988+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:13:12.775988+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: Earlier and subsequent BER cases also support this view (See BER Case Nos. 87-5, 79-8, 87-4, 81-4).
textreferences: Earlier and subsequent BER cases also support this view (See BER Case Nos. 87-5, 79-8, 87-4, 81-4).
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review as corroborating authority
usedincontext: 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.
version: 1987
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.120589
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

BER Case 96-5
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 96-5
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:13:12.775988+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:13:12.775988+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: NSPE recently considered a similar set of facts in BER Case 96-5.
textreferences: As the Board noted in Case 96-5, engineers must always follow their ethical compass on matters of this type
textreferences: NSPE recently considered a similar set of facts in BER Case 96-5.
textreferences: The Board reviewed the case and determined that it would not be ethical for Engineer A to proceed with the project under these circumstances.
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review as primary analogical precedent
usedincontext: 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.
version: 1996
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.120295
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

BER Case 96-5 (1996) before Present case involving Engineer A
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.134161
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

BER Cases 79-8 and 81-4 before BER Cases 87-4 and 87-5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.134102
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

BER Cases 87-4 and 87-5 before BER Case 96-5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.134131
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

BER Direct vs Indirect Corrupt Arrangement Factual Distinction BER Case Discussion
type: DirectvsIndirectCorruptArrangementFactualDistinctionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Direct vs Indirect Corrupt Arrangement Factual Distinction Capability
capabilitystatement: 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
casecontext: 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
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Explicit acknowledgment of the factual distinction between direct kickback and indirect 'encouragement to associate' while affirming that both are ethically impermissible under NSPE standards
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:26:59.643035+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:26:59.643035+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.132409
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

BER Global Engineering Ethics Uniform Standard Institutional Advocacy BER Case Discussion
type: GlobalEngineeringEthicsUniformStandardInstitutionalAdvocacyCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Global Engineering Ethics Uniform Standard Institutional Advocacy Capability
capabilitystatement: 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
casecontext: 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
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: 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'
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:26:59.643035+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:26:59.643035+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: 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.).
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: NSPE is not serving the engineering profession or the public by concluding otherwise.
textreferences: 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.).
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.132697
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

BER International Practice Slippery Slope Ethical Consequence Reasoning BER Case Discussion
type: InternationalPracticeSlipperySlopeEthicalConsequenceReasoningCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: International Practice Slippery Slope Ethical Consequence Reasoning Capability
capabilitystatement: 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
casecontext: BER justification for applying uniform NSPE ethics standards to all members regardless of national origin or host-country customs
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:26:59.643035+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:26:59.643035+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: We believe that such an approach is wholly unacceptable and refuse to follow that path.
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.131998
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

BER Multi-Precedent International Corrupt Payment Cross-Case Synthesis BER Case Discussion
type: BERMulti-PrecedentInternationalCorruptPaymentCross-CaseSynthesisCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: BER Multi-Precedent International Corrupt Payment Cross-Case Synthesis Capability
capabilitystatement: 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
casecontext: BER analysis of Engineer A's situation involving Engineer B's proposed 'business arrangements' and Country A's gift-giving customs
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:26:59.643035+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:26:59.643035+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: NSPE recently considered a similar set of facts in BER Case 96-5.
textreferences: Earlier and subsequent BER cases also support this view (See BER Case Nos. 87-5, 79-8, 87-4, 81-4).
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: NSPE recently considered a similar set of facts in BER Case 96-5.
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.131862
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

BER NAFTA GATS International Engineering Practice Context Awareness BER Case Discussion
type: NAFTAGATSInternationalEngineeringPracticeContextAwarenessCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: NAFTA GATS International Engineering Practice Context Awareness Capability
capabilitystatement: 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
casecontext: BER contextual framing of the international engineering ethics issues raised by Engineer A's situation
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.83
demonstratedthrough: Explicit discussion of NAFTA and GATS as drivers of increased international engineering practice and the resulting exposure to differing procurement customs
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:26:59.643035+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:26:59.643035+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.132265
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

BER Situational Ethics Categorical Prohibition
type: SituationalEthicsProhibitionPrecedentActiveState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Established in BER Case 76-6 (1970s), reaffirmed in BER Case 96-5, and applied in the present case; persists as binding precedent
affectedparties: All NSPE members practicing internationally
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineering profession
affectedparties: Public in host countries
concept category: State
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:14:03.042640+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:14:03.042640+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: 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)
stateclass: Situational Ethics Prohibition Precedent Active State
subject: The established BER precedent categorically prohibiting 'When in Rome' situational ethics adjustments for engineers practicing internationally
terminatedby: Not terminated — represents established and repeatedly reaffirmed precedent
textreferences: Situational ethics cannot be practiced any more in the professional practice area than it can in any technical area of practice
textreferences: engineers must be consistent in their ethical conduct regardless of where it is the engineer is rendering professional services
textreferences: 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)
triggeringevent: First BER consideration of whether engineers practicing abroad could adopt local ethical standards (BER Case 76-6)
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.122398
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

BER Uniform NSPE Ethics Standard Cross-Member-Class Application BER Case Discussion
type: UniformNSPEEthicsStandardCross-Member-ClassApplicationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:24:26.088902+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:24:26.088902+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: NSPE Board of Ethical Review; NSPE Institution
obligationclass: Uniform NSPE Ethics Standard Cross-Member-Class Application Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.)
temporalscope: In the BER's deliberation and determination of this case
textreferences: 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
textreferences: NSPE is not serving the engineering profession or the public by concluding otherwise
textreferences: 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.)
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.129624
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

BER Universal Membership Ruling
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.133845
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

BER When-in-Rome Situational Ethics Rejection BER Case Discussion
type: When-in-RomeSituationalEthicsRejectionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: When-in-Rome Situational Ethics Rejection Capability
capabilitystatement: 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
casecontext: BER discussion of whether Engineer A's participation in Country A's gift-giving customs could be justified by host-country acceptability
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: 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'
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:26:59.643035+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:26:59.643035+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Board of Ethical Review
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Situational ethics cannot be practiced any more in the professional practice area than it can in any technical area of practice.
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.131698
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Case 91 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.134312
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

CausalLink_Engaging in Foreign Government
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.815496
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer in BER 76-6 Making Di
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.815564
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer in BER 96-5 Proceedin
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.815531
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

CausalLink_Joining NSPE as International
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.812909
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

CausalLink_Providing Cash Payments to For
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.812981
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.813962
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 402
cited provision1: II.5.b.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.814042
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 401
cited provision1: II.5.b.
cited provision2: II.1.d.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.814117
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 403
cited provision1: II.5.b.
cited provision2: II.1.d.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.814190
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Conclusion_104
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 202
answers question3: 302
cited provision1: II.5.b.
conclusion number: 104
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.814270
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Conclusion_105
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 404
conclusion number: 105
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.814344
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
cited provision1: II.5.b.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.814412
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: II.5.b.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.814485
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
cited provision1: II.5.b.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.814554
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 404
cited provision1: II.5.b.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.814630
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: II.5.b.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.814699
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
cited provision1: II.5.b.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.814785
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 302
cited provision1: II.5.b.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.814875
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: II.5.b.
cited provision2: II.1.d.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.814953
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 304
cited provision1: II.5.b.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.815024
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 401
cited provision1: II.5.b.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.815090
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 402
cited provision1: II.5.b.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.815160
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 403
cited provision1: II.5.b.
cited provision2: II.1.d.
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.815235
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 301
cited provision1: II.5.b.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.815311
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 202
cited provision1: II.5.b.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.815382
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 304
cited provision1: II.5.b.
cited provision2: II.1.d.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: 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.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.815461
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Corrupt Payment Prohibition Applied to Engineer A Engineer B Kickback Arrangement
type: CorruptPaymentProhibitioninProfessionalEngagementProcurement
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Country A Government Foreign Government Engineering Services Client
appliedto: Engineer A Non-US NSPE Member International Engineer
appliedto: Engineer B Local Intermediary Kickback Facilitating Engineer
balancingwith: Competitive disadvantage
balancingwith: Local Custom Non-Excuse for Professional Ethics Violation Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.94
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:22:23.849683+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:22:23.849683+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: BER (Board of Ethical Review)
principleclass: Corrupt Payment Prohibition in Professional Engagement Procurement
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: The corrupt payment prohibition is categorical and admits no exception for local custom, legal permissibility, or indirect facilitation through intermediaries
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: The Board reviewed the case and determined that it would not be ethical for Engineer A to proceed with the project under these circumstances.
textreferences: the NSPE Code has been clearly interpreted to prohibit the payment of any compensation in exchange for work.
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.128858
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Corrupt Payment Prohibition Invoked Against Engineer A Kickback Arrangement
type: CorruptPaymentProhibitioninProfessionalEngagementProcurement
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Cash payments or in-kind property to Country A government officials
appliedto: Engineer B Local Intermediary Kickback Facilitating Engineer role
balancingwith: Competitive disadvantage in Country A market
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:15:55.153406+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:15:55.153406+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: Engineer A International Government Consulting Engineer
principleclass: Corrupt Payment Prohibition in Professional Engagement Procurement
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.123007
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Country A Government Foreign Government Engineering Services Client
type: ForeignGovernmentEngineeringServicesClient
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Foreign national/local government', 'project': 'Major water infrastructure project', 'local_custom': 'Permits substantial gifts to public officials for contract awards'}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:13:16.752780+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:13:16.752780+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client_of', 'target': 'Engineer A Non-US NSPE Member International Engineer'}
relationships: {'type': 'encouraged_association_with', 'target': 'Engineer B Local Intermediary Kickback Facilitating Engineer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Foreign Government Engineering Services Client
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: One of the acceptable 'customs' in Country A was for consultants such as engineers to give substantial gifts to public officials
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.121709
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Cross-Cultural Ethical Conflict Diplomatic Sidestepping — Engineer A Country A Gift-Giving Custom
type: Cross-CulturalEthicalConflictDiplomaticSidesteppingConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Cross-Cultural Ethical Conflict Diplomatic Sidestepping Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:26:27.988948+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:26:27.988948+00:00
importance: medium
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.1.d; BER Case 96-5; BER Discussion
sourcetext: 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
temporalscope: At the time Engineer A was approached by Engineer B regarding 'business arrangements' for the Country A water project
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.130484
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: 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?
focus: 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.
option1: 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.
option2: 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.
option3: 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.
role label: Engineer A Non-US NSPE Member International Engineer
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.812270
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: 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?
focus: 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.
option1: 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.
option2: 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.
option3: 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.
role label: Engineer A NSPE International Member
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.812349
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: 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?
focus: 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.
option1: 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.
option2: 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.
option3: 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.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.812427
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: 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?
focus: 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.
option1: 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.
option2: 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.
option3: 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.
role label: Engineer A Non-US NSPE Member International Engineer
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.816920
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: 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?
focus: 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.
option1: 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.
option2: 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.
option3: 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.
role label: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.817002
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

DP6
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP6
decision question: 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?
focus: 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.
option1: 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.
option2: 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.
option3: 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.
role label: Engineer A Home-Country Legal Permissibility Non-Excuse
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.817084
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Diplomatic Ethics Navigation Obligation Applied to Engineer A's Cross-Cultural Dilemma
type: DiplomaticEthicsNavigationObligationinCross-CulturalPractice
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A Non-US NSPE Member International Engineer
appliedto: Engineer B Local Intermediary Kickback Facilitating Engineer
balancingwith: Business relationship preservation
balancingwith: Honesty
balancingwith: Local Custom Non-Excuse for Professional Ethics Violation Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:22:23.849683+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:22:23.849683+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: 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
invokedby: BER (Board of Ethical Review)
principleclass: Diplomatic Ethics Navigation Obligation in Cross-Cultural Practice
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.128072
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engaging in Foreign Government Contracting
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.133526
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer A Corrupt Procurement Competitive Disadvantage Non-Excuse
type: CorruptProcurementCompetitiveDisadvantageNon-ExcuseConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Corrupt Procurement Competitive Disadvantage Non-Excuse Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:19:32.332563+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:19:32.332563+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Cases 76-6, 96-5; BER categorical rejection of situational ethics
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Throughout all international engineering procurement activities
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.126539
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer A Cross-Cultural Corrupt Custom Diplomatic Sidestepping BER Case Discussion
type: Cross-CulturalCorruptCustomDiplomaticSidesteppingObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:24:26.088902+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:24:26.088902+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (NSPE International Member)
obligationclass: Cross-Cultural Corrupt Custom Diplomatic Sidestepping Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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
temporalscope: Upon receipt of Engineer B's proposal for 'business arrangements' and throughout the procurement process
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.129208
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer A Cross-Cultural Engineering Practice Consistent Ethical Compass BER Case Discussion
type: Cross-CulturalEngineeringPracticeConsistentEthicalCompassObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:24:26.088902+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:24:26.088902+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (NSPE International Member)
obligationclass: Cross-Cultural Engineering Practice Consistent Ethical Compass Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer A's professional engineering practice in Country A and any other international jurisdiction
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.129929
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer A Direct vs Indirect Corrupt Arrangement Factual Distinction
type: DirectvsIndirectCorruptArrangementFactualDistinctionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Direct vs Indirect Corrupt Arrangement Factual Distinction Capability
capabilitystatement: 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
casecontext: Engineer A's evaluation of Engineer B's proposal to handle 'business arrangements' in Country A in connection with the water project contract award
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:26:59.643035+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:26:59.643035+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.132540
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer A Ethical Dilemma — Legal vs. Ethical Conduct in Foreign Markets
type: EthicalDilemma
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Ongoing — persists as long as Engineer A operates in foreign government markets under current legal and professional framework
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Foreign public officials
affectedparties: NSPE
affectedparties: Public trust in engineering profession
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:12:24.959260+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:12:24.959260+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: 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
stateclass: Ethical Dilemma
subject: Engineer A's decision whether to make payments to foreign officials that are domestically legal but potentially professionally unethical
terminatedby: Resolution through professional ethics guidance, change in law, or Engineer A's adoption of a clear conduct standard
textreferences: Engineer A, a legally recognized engineer and resident in his home country and an NSPE International Member
textreferences: 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
triggeringevent: Conflict between home country legal permissibility of foreign official payments and NSPE professional ethics obligations
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.119942
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer A Ethics Beyond Home Country Legal Minimum
type: EthicalConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Ethical Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:19:32.332563+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:19:32.332563+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Cases 76-6, 96-5, 87-5, 79-8, 87-4, 81-4
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Throughout all professional engineering practice as an NSPE International Member
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.127357
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer A Ethics Beyond Legal Minimum International Practice
type: EthicsBeyondMinimumEmploymentRelationshipConductObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:17:37.472752+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:17:37.472752+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Ethics Beyond Minimum Employment Relationship Conduct Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Throughout all international engineering practice activities
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.125389
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer A Ethics Beyond Legal Minimum International Practice Ethical Reasoning
type: EthicalReasoning
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Ethical Reasoning
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: The case requires Engineer A to exercise ethical reasoning to resolve a complex normative conflict between legal permissibility and professional ethics obligations
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Required to deliberate on the ethical permissibility of corrupt payments, weighing home-country legal permissibility against NSPE membership obligations and professional ethics principles
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:19:29.349165+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:19:29.349165+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.125821
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer A Foreign Corrupt Payment Prohibition Recognition
type: ForeignCorruptPaymentProhibitionRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Foreign Corrupt Payment Prohibition Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: 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
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:19:29.349165+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:19:29.349165+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.132987
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer A Foreign Official Corrupt Payment Prohibition
type: ForeignOfficialCorruptPaymentProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.97
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:17:37.472752+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:17:37.472752+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Foreign Official Corrupt Payment Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: At all times during procurement, negotiation, and performance of engineering contracts with foreign governments
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.124249
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer A Foreign Official Corrupt Payment Prohibition BER Case Discussion Section
type: ForeignOfficialCorruptPaymentProhibitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:24:26.088902+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:24:26.088902+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (NSPE International Member)
obligationclass: Foreign Official Corrupt Payment Prohibition Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: the NSPE Code has been clearly interpreted to prohibit the payment of any compensation in exchange for work
temporalscope: Upon Engineer B's proposal of 'business arrangements' as a condition of the Country A water project contract
textreferences: The Board reviewed the case and determined that it would not be ethical for Engineer A to proceed with the project under these circumstances
textreferences: the NSPE Code has been clearly interpreted to prohibit the payment of any compensation in exchange for work
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.130065
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer A Foreign Official Payment Prohibition
type: ForeignOfficialPaymentProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.97
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Foreign Official Payment Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:19:32.332563+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:19:32.332563+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: 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
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Throughout all international engineering and construction contracting activities
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.126096
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer A Home-Country Law Non-Excuse NSPE Ethics Compliance
type: Home-CountryLawNon-ExcuseforNSPEEthicsComplianceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Home-Country Law Non-Excuse for NSPE Ethics Compliance Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: 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
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.94
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:19:29.349165+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:19:29.349165+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.125554
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer A Home-Country Law Non-Excuse for NSPE Ethics Compliance
type: Home-CountryLawNon-ExcuseforNSPEEthicsComplianceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Home-Country Law Non-Excuse for NSPE Ethics Compliance Capability
capabilitystatement: 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
casecontext: Engineer A's recognition that Country A's legal permissibility of gift-giving customs does not excuse NSPE ethics violations
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Recognition that NSPE ethics standards apply as an independent normative layer above and beyond home-country legal requirements
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:26:59.643035+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:26:59.643035+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.133124
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer A Home-Country Legal Permissibility Non-Excuse
type: Home-CountryLegalPermissibilityNon-ExcuseforNSPEEthicsViolationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:17:37.472752+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:17:37.472752+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Home-Country Legal Permissibility Non-Excuse for NSPE Ethics Violation Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Whenever Engineer A's home-country law is invoked as a potential justification for conduct that would violate NSPE ethics
textreferences: Engineer A, a legally recognized engineer and resident in his home country and an NSPE International Member
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.124662
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer A Home-Country Legal Permissibility Non-Excuse BER Case Discussion Section
type: Home-CountryLegalPermissibilityNon-ExcuseforNSPEEthicsViolationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:24:26.088902+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:24:26.088902+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (NSPE International Member)
obligationclass: Home-Country Legal Permissibility Non-Excuse for NSPE Ethics Violation Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer A's NSPE membership and international engineering practice
textreferences: The Board of Ethical Review's decision at that time was proper then and continues to be proper today
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.130198
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer A Home-Country Market Competitive Disadvantage
type: EthicsComplianceCompetitiveDisadvantageState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Active during Engineer A's practice in home country while NSPE member; persists as long as local market norms diverge from NSPE code
affectedparties: Competing local engineers not bound by NSPE code
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer A's firm
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:14:03.042640+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:14:03.042640+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: the Board recognizes the reality that Engineer A may be placed at a significant competitive disadvantage in providing services in his home country
stateclass: Ethics Compliance Competitive Disadvantage State
subject: Engineer A's competitive position in home-country engineering market due to NSPE code compliance
terminatedby: Not terminated — acknowledged as ongoing consequence of membership
textreferences: the Board recognizes the reality that Engineer A may be placed at a significant competitive disadvantage in providing services in his home country
triggeringevent: Engineer A's decision to comply with NSPE code in a market where competitors may engage in gift-giving and payment practices
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.122199
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer A Home Country Legal Permissibility Non-Excuse
type: Home-CountryLegalPermissibilityNon-ExcuseforEthicsViolationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.96
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Home-Country Legal Permissibility Non-Excuse for Ethics Violation Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:19:32.332563+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:19:32.332563+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Cases 76-6, 96-5; BER categorical rejection of 'When in Rome' situational ethics
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Throughout all international engineering practice as an NSPE International Member
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.126238
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer A Home Country Legal Permissibility of Foreign Official Payments
type: DomesticLawPermittingForeignOfficialPaymentState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Ongoing — persists for the duration of Engineer A's foreign government consulting practice under current home country law
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Foreign local governments
affectedparties: Foreign national governments
affectedparties: Foreign public officials
affectedparties: NSPE as membership organization
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:12:24.959260+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:12:24.959260+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: 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
stateclass: Domestic Law Permitting Foreign Official Payment State
subject: Engineer A's business operations providing services to foreign governments
terminatedby: Change in home country law, voluntary adoption of international anti-corruption standards, or cessation of foreign government work
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
triggeringevent: 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
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.119622
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer A Home Country Payment Permissibility
type: DomesticLawPermittingForeignOfficialPaymentState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Active throughout the engagement decision period; reflects ongoing home-country legal context
affectedparties: Competing engineers
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Foreign government officials
affectedparties: NSPE
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:14:03.042640+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:14:03.042640+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: certain practices deemed unacceptable in the U.S. are determined to be legal and acceptable in the home country
stateclass: Domestic Law Permitting Foreign Official Payment State
subject: Engineer A's home country legal framework permitting cash payments or compensation to public officials in connection with public works contracts
terminatedby: Not terminated — reflects ongoing home-country legal framework
textreferences: 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
textreferences: certain practices deemed unacceptable in the U.S. are determined to be legal and acceptable in the home country
triggeringevent: Engineer A's consideration of the public works project in home country where payment customs exist
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.122704
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer A International Engineering Ethics Cross-Cultural Norm Conflict Navigation
type: InternationalEngineeringEthicsCross-CulturalNormConflictNavigationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: International Engineering Ethics Cross-Cultural Norm Conflict Navigation Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: 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
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:19:29.349165+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:19:29.349165+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.132837
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer A International Engineering Practice Engineer Dishonor Avoidance BER Case Discussion
type: InternationalEngineeringPracticeEngineerDishonorAvoidanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:24:26.088902+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:24:26.088902+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (NSPE International Member)
obligationclass: International Engineering Practice Engineer Dishonor Avoidance Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.)
temporalscope: Upon receipt of Engineer B's proposal and throughout the Country A water project procurement
textreferences: 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.)
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.129481
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer A International Engineering Procurement Competitive Integrity
type: InternationalEngineeringProcurementCompetitiveIntegrityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:17:37.472752+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:17:37.472752+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: International Engineering Procurement Competitive Integrity Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Throughout all procurement and contract-pursuit activities with foreign governments
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.125077
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer A International Government Consulting Engineer
type: InternationalGovernmentConsultingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'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'}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:12:25.600760+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:12:25.600760+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Foreign Government Engineering Services Client'}
relationships: {'type': 'professional_code_obligation', 'target': 'NSPE Code of Ethics'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: International Government Consulting Engineer
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.118503
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer A International Member Ethics Standard Applicability
type: InternationalMemberEthicsStandardApplicabilityState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Active throughout Engineer A's NSPE membership while practicing in home country
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Foreign government officials
affectedparties: NSPE
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:14:03.042640+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:14:03.042640+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: 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
stateclass: International Member Ethics Standard Applicability State
subject: Engineer A as NSPE international member operating under home-country law that permits payments to foreign officials
terminatedby: Not terminated in this case
textreferences: 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
triggeringevent: Engineer A's NSPE international membership combined with home-country legal permissibility of payments to public officials
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.122550
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer A Local Intermediary Corrupt Payment Facilitation Non-Participation
type: LocalIntermediaryCorruptPaymentFacilitationNon-ParticipationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.94
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Local Intermediary Corrupt Payment Facilitation Non-Participation Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:19:32.332563+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:19:32.332563+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.5.b, III.6, III.7; BER Case 96-5
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Throughout all international engineering and construction contracting activities involving local intermediaries
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.126698
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer A Local Intermediary Kickback Arrangement Non-Participation
type: LocalIntermediaryKickbackArrangementNon-ParticipationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:17:37.472752+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:17:37.472752+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Local Intermediary Kickback Arrangement Non-Participation Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Prior to and during the proposal and negotiation phase for the Country A water project contract
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.124940
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer A Local Intermediary Kickback Arrangement Recognition and Refusal
type: LocalIntermediaryKickbackArrangementRecognitionandRefusalCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Local Intermediary Kickback Arrangement Recognition and Refusal Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: 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
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:19:29.349165+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:19:29.349165+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.125689
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer A NAFTA GATS International Engineering Practice Context Awareness
type: NAFTAGATSInternationalEngineeringPracticeContextAwarenessCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: NAFTA GATS International Engineering Practice Context Awareness Capability
capabilitystatement: 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
casecontext: 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
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: Operating in the international engineering services market created by NAFTA and GATS while maintaining NSPE ethics compliance
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:26:59.643035+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:26:59.643035+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.132132
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer A NSPE Ethics Norm Competence International Practice
type: NormCompetence
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Norm Competence
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: 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
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:19:29.349165+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:19:29.349165+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.125950
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer A NSPE Extraterritorial Ethics Jurisdiction Self-Application
type: NSPEExtraterritorialEthicsJurisdictionSelf-ApplicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: NSPE Extraterritorial Ethics Jurisdiction Self-Application Capability
capabilitystatement: 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.
casecontext: 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
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:19:29.349165+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:19:29.349165+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.133301
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer A NSPE International Member Ethics Applicability
type: InternationalMemberEthicsStandardApplicabilityState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Ongoing — persists for the duration of Engineer A's NSPE International Membership while conducting foreign government work
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Foreign governments receiving services
affectedparties: NSPE
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:12:24.959260+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:12:24.959260+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A, a legally recognized engineer and resident in his home country and an NSPE International Member
stateclass: International Member Ethics Standard Applicability State
subject: Engineer A's status as NSPE International Member operating under home country law that permits foreign official payments
terminatedby: NSPE clarification of extraterritorial ethics applicability, Engineer A's relinquishment of membership, or alignment of domestic law with professional ethics standards
textreferences: Engineer A, a legally recognized engineer and resident in his home country and an NSPE International Member
textreferences: provides consulting, engineering, and construction contracting services to foreign national and local governments
triggeringevent: Engineer A holding NSPE International Membership while operating under home country law that permits payments to foreign officials that NSPE ethics standards may prohibit
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.119779
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer A NSPE International Member Extraterritorial Ethics Compliance
type: NSPEInternationalMemberExtraterritorialEthicsComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:17:37.472752+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:17:37.472752+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: NSPE International Member Extraterritorial Ethics Compliance Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Throughout all international engineering practice activities undertaken as an NSPE International Member
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.124802
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer A NSPE International Member Uniform Ethics Standard
type: NSPEInternationalMemberUniformEthicsStandardConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: NSPE International Member Uniform Ethics Standard Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:19:32.332563+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:19:32.332563+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Cases 76-6, 96-5; NSPE International Membership terms
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Throughout the duration of NSPE International Membership
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.126374
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer A Non-US NSPE Member International Engineer
type: Non-USNSPEMemberInternationalEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Non-U.S. professional engineering license', 'nspe_membership': 'Voluntary NSPE member', 'jurisdiction': 'Home country (non-U.S.)', 'specialty': 'Water infrastructure consulting'}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:13:16.752780+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:13:16.752780+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Country A Government'}
relationships: {'type': 'member_of', 'target': 'NSPE'}
relationships: {'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer B Local Intermediary Kickback Facilitating Engineer'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Non-US NSPE Member International Engineer
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: Engineer A may be placed at a significant competitive disadvantage in providing services in his home country
textreferences: Engineer A was encouraged to associate with and retain Engineer B
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.121435
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer A Public Welfare Non-Subordination to Corrupt Procurement Gain
type: PublicWelfareNon-SubordinationtoCorruptProcurementGainObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:17:37.472752+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:17:37.472752+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Public Welfare Non-Subordination to Corrupt Procurement Gain Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Whenever Engineer A evaluates whether to participate in corrupt procurement arrangements for public infrastructure projects
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.125238
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer A Situational Ethics Non-Practice International Engineering BER Case Discussion
type: SituationalEthicsNon-PracticeinInternationalEngineeringObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:24:26.088902+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:24:26.088902+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (NSPE International Member)
obligationclass: Situational Ethics Non-Practice in International Engineering Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: Situational ethics cannot be practiced any more in the professional practice area than it can in any technical area of practice
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer A's engagement with Country A's government water project procurement
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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)
textreferences: Situational ethics cannot be practiced any more in the professional practice area than it can in any technical area of practice
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.129767
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer A Voluntary Membership Competitive Disadvantage Acceptance BER Case Discussion
type: VoluntaryMembershipCompetitiveDisadvantageAcceptanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:24:26.088902+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:24:26.088902+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (NSPE International Member)
obligationclass: Voluntary Membership Competitive Disadvantage Acceptance Obligation
obligationstatement: 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.
sourcetext: 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
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer A's NSPE membership and international engineering practice
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.129348
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer A Voluntary NSPE Membership Ethics Obligation
type: VoluntaryProfessionalSocietyEthicsObligationAcceptanceState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the moment Engineer A voluntarily joined NSPE as an international member, persisting through the current engagement decision
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Foreign government client
affectedparties: NSPE
affectedparties: Public in Engineer A's home country
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:14:03.042640+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:14:03.042640+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: 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
stateclass: Voluntary Professional Society Ethics Obligation Acceptance State
subject: Engineer A's relationship to NSPE Code of Ethics as an international member practicing in home country
terminatedby: Not terminated — persists as long as Engineer A remains an NSPE member
textreferences: Engineer A has voluntarily chosen to become a member of NSPE and is bound by the Code
textreferences: 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
triggeringevent: Engineer A's voluntary application for and acceptance of NSPE international membership
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.121865
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer A When-in-Rome Situational Ethics Rejection
type: When-in-RomeSituationalEthicsRejectionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: When-in-Rome Situational Ethics Rejection Capability
capabilitystatement: 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'
casecontext: 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
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: 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
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:26:59.643035+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:26:59.643035+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Situational ethics cannot be practiced any more in the professional practice area than it can in any technical area of practice.
textreferences: 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
textreferences: Situational ethics cannot be practiced any more in the professional practice area than it can in any technical area of practice.
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.131561
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer A's voluntary NSPE membership decision before Present ethical question about applicable standards
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.134251
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer B Local Intermediary Kickback Facilitating Engineer
type: LocalIntermediaryKickbackFacilitatingEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Local Country A engineering license', 'locality': 'Country A (host country)', 'prior_relationship': 'Previous private project collaboration with Engineer A'}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:13:16.752780+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:13:16.752780+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'intermediary_for', 'target': 'Country A Government Officials'}
relationships: {'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer A Non-US NSPE Member International Engineer'}
rolecategory: professional_peer
roleclass: Local Intermediary Kickback Facilitating Engineer
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.121572
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer in BER 76-6 Making Direct Kickbacks
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.133626
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer in BER 76-6 Making Direct Kickbacks → NSPE 'When in Rome' Rejection
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.133879
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer in BER 96-5 Proceeding Under Ethically Conflicted Arrangement
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.133589
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Engineer in BER 96-5 Proceeding Under Ethically Conflicted Arrangement → BER 96-5 Ruling Issued
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.133974
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Ethics Code as Higher Standard Than Legal Minimum Applied to Country A Legal Permissibility Defense
type: EthicsCodeasHigherStandardThanLegalMinimum
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Country A gift-giving customs
appliedto: Engineer A Non-US NSPE Member International Engineer
balancingwith: Jurisdiction-Specific Ethics Compliance Obligation
balancingwith: Local Custom Non-Excuse for Professional Ethics Violation Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:22:23.849683+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:22:23.849683+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: BER (Board of Ethical Review)
principleclass: Ethics Code as Higher Standard Than Legal Minimum
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: the NSPE Code has been clearly interpreted to prohibit the payment of any compensation in exchange for work.
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.128388
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Ethics Code as Higher Standard Than Legal Minimum Invoked in Engineer A International Bribery Context
type: EthicsCodeasHigherStandardThanLegalMinimum
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Cash payments or in-kind property to foreign government officials to obtain consulting and construction contracts
balancingwith: Competitive market access in host country
balancingwith: Local business custom compliance
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:15:55.153406+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:15:55.153406+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: Engineer A International Government Consulting Engineer
principleclass: Ethics Code as Higher Standard Than Legal Minimum
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: NSPE ethics obligations override home-country legal permissiveness; legal permissibility of corrupt payments does not constitute ethical authorization
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.122856
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Fairness in Professional Competition Invoked Against Kickback-Based Contract Award
type: FairnessinProfessionalCompetition
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Competitive procurement for consulting, engineering, and construction contracting services to foreign governments
balancingwith: Competitive disadvantage in markets where bribery is normalized
balancingwith: Local business custom compliance
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:15:55.153406+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:15:55.153406+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: Engineer A International Government Consulting Engineer
principleclass: Fairness in Professional Competition
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.124108
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Foreign National and Local Governments Engineering Services Client
type: ForeignGovernmentEngineeringServicesClient
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'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'}
caseinvolvement: 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.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:12:25.600760+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:12:25.600760+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'service_recipient', 'target': 'Engineer A International Government Consulting Engineer'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Foreign Government Engineering Services Client
sourcetext: provides consulting, engineering, and construction contracting services to foreign national and local governments
textreferences: cash payments or in-kind property to public officials in foreign countries in order to obtain and retain business from those public officials
textreferences: provides consulting, engineering, and construction contracting services to foreign national and local governments
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.118731
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

GATS (General Agreement on Trade in Services)
type: InternationalTradeAgreement
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: World Trade Organization member nations
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: General Agreement on Trade in Services
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:13:12.775988+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:13:12.775988+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: International Trade Agreement
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: 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
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review to frame the growing importance of international ethics guidance
usedincontext: 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.
version: In force at time of case (late 1990s)
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.121286
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Home Country Law Permitting Payments to Foreign Officials
type: ForeignBusinessPaymentsPermissibilityLaw
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.93
createdby: Legislature of Engineer A's home country
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Home Country Statute Permitting Cash Payments and In-Kind Property to Foreign Public Officials
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:12:21.568610+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:12:21.568610+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Foreign Business Payments Permissibility Law
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
usedby: Engineer A as justification for providing payments to foreign officials; BER in analyzing the legal-vs-ethical distinction
usedincontext: 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
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.119068
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Home Country Tax Deduction for Payments to Foreign Officials
type: ForeignBusinessPaymentsPermissibilityLaw
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: Tax authority of Engineer A's home country
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Home Country Tax Law Allowing Deduction for Payments to Foreign Public Officials
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:12:21.568610+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:12:21.568610+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Foreign Business Payments Permissibility Law
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: 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
usedby: Engineer A as additional legal grounding for the practice; BER in analyzing the scope of professional ethics obligations beyond domestic law
usedincontext: 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
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.119280
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Honesty Principle Invoked Against Corrupt Procurement Participation by Engineer A
type: Honesty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Professional procurement process for consulting, engineering, and construction contracting services to foreign governments
balancingwith: Competitive market access
balancingwith: Local business custom compliance
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:15:55.153406+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:15:55.153406+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: Engineer A International Government Consulting Engineer
principleclass: Honesty
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.123801
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Host-Country Citizen Minimal Protection Non-Degradation — BER Categorical Rejection Rationale
type: Host-CountryCitizenMinimalProtectionNon-DegradationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.89
constrainedentity: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
constraintclass: Host-Country Citizen Minimal Protection Non-Degradation Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:26:27.988948+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:26:27.988948+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE BER Discussion — categorical rejection of situational ethics
sourcetext: 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
temporalscope: At the time of the BER's deliberation and as an ongoing institutional precedent
textreferences: We believe that such an approach is wholly unacceptable and refuse to follow that path
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.131240
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Host-Country Citizen Minimal Protection Non-Degradation — Engineer A Country A
type: Host-CountryCitizenMinimalProtectionNon-DegradationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Host-Country Citizen Minimal Protection Non-Degradation Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:26:27.988948+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:26:27.988948+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE BER Discussion — categorical rejection of situational ethics; BER Cases 76-6, 96-5
sourcetext: 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
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer A's international engineering practice in Country A
textreferences: We believe that such an approach is wholly unacceptable and refuse to follow that path
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.130343
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Host-Country Law Permits Payments
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.133808
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Host-Country Law Permits Payments → BER Universal Membership Ruling
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.134042
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

II.1.d.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.812103
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

II.5.b.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.812151
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

III.8.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.812187
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

International Engineering Practice Profession Dishonor Avoidance — BER Precedent Continuity
type: InternationalEngineeringPracticeProfessionDishonorAvoidanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
constraintclass: International Engineering Practice Profession Dishonor Avoidance Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:26:27.988948+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:26:27.988948+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.1.d; BER Cases 76-6, 96-5, 87-5, 79-8, 87-4, 81-4
sourcetext: 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.)
temporalscope: At the time of the BER's deliberation and as an ongoing institutional precedent
textreferences: Earlier and subsequent BER cases also support this view (See BER Case Nos. 87-5, 79-8, 87-4, 81-4)
textreferences: 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.)
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.131415
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

International Engineering Practice Profession Dishonor Avoidance — Engineer A Country A Water Project
type: InternationalEngineeringPracticeProfessionDishonorAvoidanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.89
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: International Engineering Practice Profession Dishonor Avoidance Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:26:27.988948+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:26:27.988948+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section II.1.d; BER Case 96-5; BER Discussion
sourcetext: 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.)
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer A's international engineering practice
textreferences: 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.)
textreferences: engineers must always follow their ethical compass on matters of this type
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.130625
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Joining NSPE as International Member
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.133416
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Joining NSPE as International Member → BER Universal Membership Ruling
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.134006
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Late-1980s Reinforcement Rulings
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.133735
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Local Custom Non-Excuse Principle Invoked Against Home-Country Tax Deduction Defense
type: LocalCustomNon-ExcuseforProfessionalEthicsViolationPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Home-country tax deduction for cash payments or in-kind property to foreign officials
balancingwith: Client relationship preservation with foreign governments
balancingwith: Competitive disadvantage in markets where bribery is normalized
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:15:55.153406+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:15:55.153406+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: Engineer A International Government Consulting Engineer
principleclass: Local Custom Non-Excuse for Professional Ethics Violation Principle
sourcetext: 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
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.123648
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Local Custom Non-Excuse Principle Reaffirmed Across Multiple BER Precedents
type: LocalCustomNon-ExcuseforProfessionalEthicsViolationPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Country A Government Foreign Government Engineering Services Client
appliedto: Country A gift-giving customs
appliedto: Engineer A Non-US NSPE Member International Engineer
balancingwith: Cultural sensitivity in international practice
balancingwith: Diplomatic Ethics Navigation Obligation in Cross-Cultural Practice
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:22:23.849683+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:22:23.849683+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: BER (Board of Ethical Review)
principleclass: Local Custom Non-Excuse for Professional Ethics Violation Principle
sourcetext: 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).
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: 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).
textreferences: The Board of Ethical Review's decision at that time was proper then and continues to be proper today.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.129063
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement)
type: InternationalTradeAgreement
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.9
createdby: Governments of the United States, Canada, and Mexico
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: North American Free Trade Agreement
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:13:12.775988+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:13:12.775988+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: International Trade Agreement
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: 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
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review to frame the growing importance of international ethics guidance
usedincontext: 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.
version: In force at time of case (late 1990s)
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.121127
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

NAFTA and GATS agreements before BER Case 96-5 discussion of international engineering practice
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.134220
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:13:12.775988+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:13:12.775988+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: While it would seem clear that all NSPE members should and must be bound by the NSPE Code of Ethics
textreferences: See Code Section II.5.b.
textreferences: See Code Section III.8.a.
textreferences: See NSPE Code Section II.1.d.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: While it would seem clear that all NSPE members should and must be bound by the NSPE Code of Ethics
textreferences: the NSPE Code has been clearly interpreted to prohibit the payment of any compensation in exchange for work
usedby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review in evaluating Engineer A's conduct
usedincontext: 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.
version: Current at time of case (late 1990s)
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.120099
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE)
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:12:21.568610+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:12:21.568610+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer A, a legally recognized engineer and resident in his home country and an NSPE International Member
textreferences: Engineer A, a legally recognized engineer and resident in his home country and an NSPE International Member
usedby: Engineer A (NSPE International Member) and the Board of Ethical Review in evaluating the ethical permissibility of payments to foreign officials
usedincontext: 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
version: Current at time of case
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.118881
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

NSPE Membership Ethics Extraterritorial Applicability Invoked for Engineer A International Practice
type: NSPEMembershipEthicsObligationExtraterritorialApplicabilityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's consulting, engineering, and construction contracting services to foreign national and local governments
balancingwith: Jurisdiction-Specific Ethics Compliance Obligation
balancingwith: Local business custom compliance
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:15:55.153406+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:15:55.153406+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: Engineer A International Government Consulting Engineer
principleclass: NSPE Membership Ethics Obligation Extraterritorial Applicability Principle
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.123467
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

NSPE Membership Ethics Extraterritorial Applicability Reaffirmed for Non-US Member
type: NSPEMembershipEthicsObligationExtraterritorialApplicabilityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A Non-US NSPE Member International Engineer
appliedto: Engineer A's practice in Country A
balancingwith: Competitive disadvantage
balancingwith: Local Custom Non-Excuse for Professional Ethics Violation Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:22:23.849683+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:22:23.849683+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: BER (Board of Ethical Review)
principleclass: NSPE Membership Ethics Obligation Extraterritorial Applicability Principle
sourcetext: 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
tensionresolution: NSPE membership obligations prevail over geographic and cultural arguments; the voluntary nature of membership is the key to resolving the tension
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.128697
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

NSPE Uniform Cross-Membership Standard Enforcement Decision
type: UniformCross-MembershipEthicsStandardEnforcementState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Established through prior BER cases (76-6, 96-5) and reaffirmed in the present case; persists as institutional policy
affectedparties: All NSPE international members
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineering profession globally
affectedparties: NSPE as institution
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:14:03.042640+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:14:03.042640+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: 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
stateclass: Uniform Cross-Membership Ethics Standard Enforcement State
subject: NSPE BER's institutional determination that all members — domestic and international — are bound by the same ethics code
terminatedby: Not terminated — represents ongoing institutional policy
textreferences: all NSPE members should be bound by the same high standards, notwithstanding national borders or cultural differences
textreferences: 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
triggeringevent: BER consideration of whether international members should be held to different standards than domestic members
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.122017
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

NSPE 'When in Rome' Rejection
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.133664
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

NSPE 'When in Rome' Rejection → Additional Precedents Established
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.133911
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Personal Misconduct Ethics Standard
type: PersonalMisconductEthicsStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review through accumulated case precedent
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Norms on Personal Misconduct and Engineer Integrity
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:12:21.568610+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:12:21.568610+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Personal Misconduct Ethics Standard
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: 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
usedby: BER in analyzing whether legally permissible conduct can still violate professional ethics standards
usedincontext: 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
version: N/A — established professional norm
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.119452
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Professional Honor Preservation Invoked in Engineer A International Practice Context
type: ProfessionalDignity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A Non-US NSPE Member International Engineer
appliedto: Engineering profession's international reputation
balancingwith: Cultural sensitivity
balancingwith: Local Custom Non-Excuse for Professional Ethics Violation Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.84
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:22:23.849683+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:22:23.849683+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: 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.
invokedby: BER (Board of Ethical Review)
principleclass: Professional Dignity
sourcetext: 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.).
tensionresolution: The BER resolved the tension by treating professional honor as a universal professional obligation that travels with the engineer, not a culturally relative standard
textreferences: 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.).
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.128226
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Providing Cash Payments to Foreign Officials
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.133485
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked Against Corrupt Engineering Procurement in Foreign Government Projects
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Consulting, engineering, and construction contracting services to foreign national and local governments for public infrastructure
balancingwith: Client relationship with foreign governments
balancingwith: Local business custom compliance
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.84
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:15:55.153406+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:15:55.153406+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: Engineer A International Government Consulting Engineer
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.123958
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked as Rationale for Consistent International Ethics Standards
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Citizens of Country A
appliedto: Engineer A Non-US NSPE Member International Engineer
balancingwith: Competitive disadvantage to international members
balancingwith: Cultural sensitivity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:22:23.849683+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:22:23.849683+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: BER (Board of Ethical Review)
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: Public welfare protection of host-country citizens prevails over competitive and cultural considerations as the paramount engineering ethics obligation
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.128543
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.815596
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.815924
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.815955
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.815986
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.816017
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.816048
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.816079
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.816111
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.816140
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.815630
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.815661
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.815710
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.815744
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.815781
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.815814
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.815845
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.815877
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: 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?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.812489
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: 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?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.812546
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: 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?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.813040
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: 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?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.813122
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: 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?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.813179
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: 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?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.813235
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: 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?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.813289
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: 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?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.813368
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: 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?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.813426
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: 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?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.813484
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: 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?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.813543
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: 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?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.813600
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: 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?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.813654
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: 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?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.813712
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: 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?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.813768
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: 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?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.813823
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: 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?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.813878
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.816170
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.816466
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.816497
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.816530
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.816561
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.816593
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.816622
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.816666
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.816699
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.816731
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.816760
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.816201
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.816791
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.816821
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.816234
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.816263
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.816293
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.816324
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.816353
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.816384
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:47:03.816428
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Single Ethics Standard Cross-Member-Class Non-Differentiation — NSPE BER Engineer A Decision
type: NSPEInternationalMemberUniformEthicsStandardConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
constraintclass: NSPE International Member Uniform Ethics Standard Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:26:27.988948+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:26:27.988948+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code Section III.8.a; BER Discussion
sourcetext: 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.)
temporalscope: At the time of the BER's deliberation on Engineer A's case
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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.)
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.130937
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Situational Ethics Rejection Applied to International Kickback Context
type: SituationalEthicsRejectionPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Country A Government Foreign Government Engineering Services Client
appliedto: Engineer A Non-US NSPE Member International Engineer
appliedto: Engineer B Local Intermediary Kickback Facilitating Engineer
balancingwith: Cultural sensitivity in international practice
balancingwith: Local Custom Non-Excuse for Professional Ethics Violation Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:22:23.849683+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:22:23.849683+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: BER (Board of Ethical Review)
principleclass: Situational Ethics Rejection Principle
sourcetext: Situational ethics cannot be practiced any more in the professional practice area than it can in any technical area of practice.
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Situational ethics cannot be practiced any more in the professional practice area than it can in any technical area of practice.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.127863
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Situational Ethics Technical-Professional Practice Parity Prohibition — Engineer A International Practice
type: SituationalEthicsTechnical-ProfessionalPracticeParityProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Situational Ethics Technical-Professional Practice Parity Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:26:27.988948+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:26:27.988948+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE BER Discussion; BER Cases 76-6, 96-5, 87-5, 79-8, 87-4, 81-4
sourcetext: Situational ethics cannot be practiced any more in the professional practice area than it can in any technical area of practice
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer A's international engineering practice
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Situational ethics cannot be practiced any more in the professional practice area than it can in any technical area of practice
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.130770
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Uniform Ethics Standard Invoked by BER Against Differential Member Treatment
type: UniformEthicsStandardAcrossMemberClassesPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A Non-US NSPE Member International Engineer
appliedto: NSPE membership ethics adjudication framework
balancingwith: Competitive disadvantage to international members
balancingwith: Cultural sensitivity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:22:23.849683+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:22:23.849683+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: BER (Board of Ethical Review)
principleclass: Uniform Ethics Standard Across Member Classes Principle
sourcetext: 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.)
tensionresolution: 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
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: NSPE is not serving the engineering profession or the public by concluding otherwise.
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.127543
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Voluntary Membership Ethics Acceptance Invoked Against Engineer A Competitive Disadvantage Defense
type: VoluntaryProfessionalMembershipEthicsAcceptancePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A Non-US NSPE Member International Engineer
appliedto: Engineer A's kickback refusal obligation
balancingwith: Competitive disadvantage in home country market
balancingwith: Economic viability of Engineer A's practice
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: 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
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:22:23.849683+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:22:23.849683+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: 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
invokedby: BER (Board of Ethical Review)
principleclass: Voluntary Professional Membership Ethics Acceptance Principle
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: The BER resolved the tension in favor of ethics obligation, treating voluntary consent as a sufficient basis to override competitive hardship concerns
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.127700
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

Voluntary Membership Full Code Acceptance Non-Selective Compliance — Engineer A NSPE Membership
type: NSPEInternationalMemberUniformEthicsStandardConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: 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.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: NSPE International Member Uniform Ethics Standard Constraint
constraintstatement: 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.
discoveredincase: 91
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-01T06:26:27.988948+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 91
generatedattime: 2026-03-01T06:26:27.988948+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Discussion; BER Cases 76-6, 96-5
sourcetext: 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
temporalscope: From the date of Engineer A's voluntary NSPE membership acceptance through all subsequent professional practice
textreferences: 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
textreferences: 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
wasattributedto: Case 91 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.131096
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction

'When in Rome' rule rejection (BER Case 76-6, 1976) before Present case ruling that all NSPE members are bound by same standards
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-01T06:33:38.134191
was generated by: ProEthica Case 91 Extraction