CODE OF ETHICS

For Civil Engineering

Ethics

• Is based on well-founded standards of right and wrong

that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms
of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or
specific virtues.
• Is the study of what is morally right and what is not.
Fundamental Principle

• Civil engineers uphold and advance the integtiry, honor

and dignity of the civil engineering profession by:
1. using their knowledge and skill for the enhancement of human
welfare and the environment;
2. being honest and impartial and serving with fidelity the public,
their employers/employees and clients
3. striving to increase the competence and prestige of the civil
engineering profession; and
4.supporting the professional and technical societies of their
disciplines.
Fundamental Canons
CANON 1. Civil Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and wefare of
the public and shall strive to comply with the principles of sustainable
development in the performance of their duties.
• Civil Engineers shall recognize that the lives, safety, health and wefare of the public are
dependent upon engineering judgements, decision and practices incorporarted into
structures, machine, products, processes and devices.
• Civil Engineers shall approve of seal only those design documents, reviewed of prepared by
them, which are determined to be safe for public health and welfare in conformity with
accepted engineering standards.
• Civil engineering whose professional judgement is overruled under circumstances where the
safety, health and welfare of the public are endangered, or the principles of sustainable
development ignored, shall inform their clients or employers of the possible consequences.
• Civil Engineers who have knowledge or reason to believe that another person or firm may be
in violation of any of the provisions of Canon 1 shall present such information to the proper
authority in writing and shall cooperate with the proper authority in furnishing such further
informationor assistance as may be required.
Fundamental Canons
• Civil engineers should seek opportunities to be of constructive service in civil affairs and work
for the advancement of the safety, health and well-being of their communities, and the
protection of the environment through the practice of sustainable development.
• Civil engineers should be committed to improving the environment by adherence to the
principles of sustainable development so as to enchance the quality of life of the general
public.
Fundamental Canons
CANON 2. Civil Engineers shall perform services only in areas of their
competence.
• Civil Engineers shall undertake to perform engineering assignments only when qualified by
education or experience in the technical field of engineering involved.
• Civil Engineers may accept an assignment requiring education or experiences outside of
their own fileds of competence, provided their services are resticted to those phases of the
project in which they are qualified. All other phases of such project shall be performed by
qualified associates, consultants, or employees.
• Civil Engineers shall not affix their signatures or seals to any civil engineering plan or
document dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence by virtue of education
or experience or to any such plan or document not reviewed or prepared under their
supervision control.
• Civil Engineers shall not use The Speciality Engineering Title such as Structural Engineer,
Transportation Engineer, Geotechnical Construction Engineer, etc. without the PICE
Apecialist Accreditation.
Fundamental Canons
CANON 3. Civil Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective
and truthful manner.
• Engineers should endeavor to extend the public knowledge of engineering and sustainable
development, and shall not participate in the dissemination of untrue, unfair or exaggerated
statements regarding engineering.
• Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony.
They shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements, or
testimony.
• Engineers, when serving as expert witnesses, shall express an engineering opinion only
when it is founded upon adequate knowledge of the facts, upon a background of technical
competence, and upon honest conviction.
• Engineers shall issue no statements, criticisms, or arguments on engineering matters which
are inspired or paid for by interested parties, unless they indicate on whose behalf the
statements are made.
• Engineers shall be dignified and modest in explaining their work and merit, and will avoid any
act tending to promote their own interests at the expense of the integrity, honor, and dignity
of the profession.
Fundamental Canons
CANON 4. Civil Engineers shall act in professional matters for each employer
or client as faithful agents or trustees, and shall avoid conflicts of interest.
• Engineers shall avoid all known or potential conflicts of interest with their employers or
clients and shall promptly inform their employers or clients of any business association,
interests, or circumstances which could influence their judgment or the quality of their
services.
• Engineers shall not accept compensation from more than one party for services on the same
project, or for services pertaining to the same project, unless the circumstances are fully
disclosed to and agreed to, by all interested parties.
• Engineers shall not solicit or accept gratuities, directly or indirectly, from contractors, their
agents, or other parties dealing with their clients or employers in connection with work for
which they are responsible.
• Engineers in public service as members, advisors, or employees of a governmental body or
department shall not participate in considerations or actions with respect to services solicited
or provided by them or their organization in private or public engineering practice.
Fundamental Canons
• Engineers shall advise their employers or clients when, as a result of their studies, they
believe a project will not be successful.
• Engineers shall not use confidential information coming to them in the course of their
assignments as a means of making personal profit if such action is adverse to the interests
of their clients, employers or the public.
• Engineers shall not accept professional employment outside of their regular work or interest
without the knowledge of their employers.
Fundamental Canons
CANON 5. Engineers shall build their professional reputation on the merit of
their services and shall not compete unfairly with others.
• Engineers shall not give, solicit or receive either directly or indirectly, any political contribution,
gratuity, or unlawful consideration in order to secure work, exclusive of securing salaried
positions through employment agencies.
• Engineers should negotiate contracts for professional services fairly and on the basis of
demonstrated competence and qualifications for the type of professional service required.
• Engineers may request, propose or accept professional commissions on a contingent basis
only under circumstances in which their professional judgments would not be compromised.
• Engineers shall not falsify or permit misrepresentation of their academic or professional
qualifications or experience.
• Engineers shall give proper credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due, and
shall recognize the proprietary interests of others. Whenever possible, they shall name the
person or persons who may be responsible for designs, inventions, writings or other
accomplishments.
Fundamental Canons
• Engineers may advertise professional services in a way that does not contain misleading
language or is in any other manner derogatory to the dignity of the profession. Examples of
permissible advertising are as follows:
- Professional cards in recognized, dignified publications, and listings in rosters or directories
published by responsible organizations, provided that the cards or listings are consistent in size
and content and are in a section of the publication regularly devoted to such professional cards.
- Brochures which factually describe experience, facilities, personnel and capacity to render
service, providing they are not misleading with respect to the engineer’s participation in projects
described.
- Display advertising in recognized dignified business and professional publications, providing it
is factual and is not misleading with respect to the engineer’s extent of participation in projects
described.
- A statement of the engineers’ names or the name of the firm and statement of the type of
service posted on projects for which they render services.
Fundamental Canons
- Preparation or authorization of descriptive articles for the lay or technical press, which are
factual and dignified. Such articles shall not imply anything more than direct participation in the
project described.
- Permission by engineers for their names to be used in commercial advertisements, such as
may be published by contractors, material suppliers, etc., only by means of a modest, dignified
notation acknowledging the engineers’ participation in the project described. Such permission
shall not include public endorsement of proprietary products.

• Engineers shall not maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, injure the professional
reputation, prospects, practice or employment of another engineer or indiscriminately criticize
another’s work.
• Engineers shall not use equipment, supplies, and laboratory or office facilities of their
employers to carry on outside private practice without the consent of their employers.
Fundamental Canons
CANON 6. Civil Engineers shall act in such manner as to uphold and enchance
the honor, integtiry, and dignity of the civil engineering profession.
• Civil Engineer shall not knowingly act in a manner which will be derogatory to the honor,
integrity, or dignity of the civil engineering professional practices of a freudulent, dishonest or
unethical nature.
• Engineers shall act with zero tolerance for bribery, fraud, and corruption in all engineering or
construction activities in which they are engaged. Engineers should be especially vigilant to
maintain appropriate ethical behavior where payments of gratuities or bribes are
institutionalized practices.
• Engineers should strive for transparency in the procurement and execution of projects.
Transparency includes disclosure of names, addresses, purposes, and fees or commissions
paid for all agents facilitating projects.
• Engineers should encourage the use of certifications specifying zero tolerance for bribery,
fraud, and corruption in all contracts.
Fundamental Canons
CANON 7. Engineers shall continue their professional development throughout
their careers, and shall provide opportunities for the professional development
of those engineers under their supervision.
• Engineers should keep current in their specialty fields by engaging in professional practice,
participating in continuing education courses, reading in the technical literature, and
attending professional meetings and seminars.
• Engineers should encourage their engineering employees to become registered at the
earliest possible date.
• Engineers should encourage engineering employees to attend and present papers at
professional and technical society meetings.
• Engineers shall uphold the principle of mutually satisfying relationships between employers
and employees with respect to terms of employment including professional grade
descriptions, salary ranges, and fringe benefits.
ETHICS CASE STUDY
Case Study 1.0: Concrete Bridge Design
Statement of the Case: Engineer A, who recently moved to British Columbia from Ontario,
learned from a classmate at a reunion that a mining company needed a design for a bridge over
a creek, near a mine in the mountains. Engineer A had designed a single-lane timber logging
bridge over a creek in northwestern Ontario but had no other bridge experience. He approached
the mining company, stated that he had extensive experience in bridge engineering, and
eventually received the contract for the design. The site was at the base of a steep slope, and
the creek was full of rocky debris. No flow records were available for the creek, so Engineer A
determined the span and clearance based on the creek’s high-water marks. He felt that the site
was adequate and did not arrange for geotechnical investigation or advice. He designed a
standard concrete box-girder bridge with a 15 m span and pile-driven abutments. A building
contract was also hired. The contractor was familiar with mine construction and mechanical
plants, but had no experience in bridges. Nevertheless, the construction went smoothly. The
bridge served well for five years, but a debris torrent during a particularly rainy winter season
destroyed the bridge in the sixth year.
ETHICS CASE STUDY
Outcome: The mining company regretted the loss of an expensive bridge, particularly because
the loss interrupted mine operations for months. The company hired an experienced bridge
engineer as a consultant to investigate the reasons for the bridge failure. The consultant noted
the debris in the creek and concluded that it was likely deposited by torrents. This design
constraint should have been satisfied by relocating the bridge site, providing a debris basin,
increasing the vertical clearance, and/or by altering the design in other ways. The mining
company complained to the Association, seeking disciplinary action against Engineer A.

Question: Did Engineer A act ethically in this project?

What canon/s in Code of Ethics did Engineer A violate?
ETHICS CASE STUDY

Case Study 2.0: “Low-Ball” Cost Estimate

Statement of the Case: Engineer A was a member of an ad-hoc citizens’ committee, which
wanted the municipality to build a small recreation centre in their neighbourhood. The ad-hoc
committee believed that the Municipal Council would not approve the project if they knew the
true estimated cost. Engineer A volunteered to prepare a “low-ball” estimate for constructing the
recreation centre, at about 60 percent of the realistic likely cost, and the ad-hoc committee
formally presented this estimate to the Council. The committee presented Engineer A as an
independent and impartial consultant. There was no information in the documents submitted to
show that Engineer A resided in the neighbourhood or was, in fact, a member of the ad-hoc
committee making the proposal.
ETHICS CASE STUDY
Outcome: The Municipal Council accepted the cost estimate, because a Professional Engineer
had prepared it. After a short debate, the Council approved the design phase of the project
without seeking another cost estimate. When the design was completed and tenders called, the
true cost of the project became apparent, but the public expected the project to go ahead; the
Council worried that there might be political repercussions if the recreation centre project were
cancelled. Moreover, they had already paid the design costs for the project. Council continued
the project and constructed the recreation centre.
However, upon inquiring, Council members soon learned that Engineer A was a resident of the
area and a member of the ad-hoc committee. On the advice of legal counsel, the Municipal
Council voted to ask the provincial Association to discipline Engineer A for failing to reveal a
conflict of interest in preparing and submitting the original cost estimate.

Question: Did Engineer A act ethically in this project?

What canon/s in Code of Ethics did Engineer A violate?
ETHICS CASE STUDY
Case Study 3.0: Busy Engineer
Statement of the Case: Engineer A was a competent consulting engineer, specializing in
manufacturing plant layout, but she was always very busy. A client asked Engineer A to review a
proposed plant layout and prepare an evaluation report. Engineer A reluctantly agreed. Because
of the pressure of other work, Engineer A assigned the task to an employee, Technologist B,
who was experienced in construction, but had little background in plant layout.
Technologist B did his best to evaluate the layout, but several key points were beyond his
knowledge. Although he tried to get advice from Engineer A, he was unable to do so, because
Engineer A was always too busy with her other projects. Technologist B finally prepared a draft
report for Engineer A to correct and complete. Technologist B sent the report to Engineer A with
a note saying that the report was an incomplete draft and that A should “give it detailed study.”
By this time, Engineer A was even busier than before, and she had to complete several major
tasks before going overseas for a month’s vacation. Engineer A simply had her secretary
reformat the draft report and print it on high-quality paper. Engineer A signed, sealed, and
mailed the report, without even reading it.
ETHICS CASE STUDY
Outcome: When the client received and read the report, he phoned Engineer A and said he
was disgusted with the poor report and would not pay for it. Although Engineer A apologized
profusely, the client insisted on sending the report to the Association and making a formal
complaint. Engineer A admitted her negligence and received a reprimand from the Discipline
Committee.

Questions: What clauses of the Code of Ethics have been violated by Engineer A’s actions?
What disciplinary actions could she expect?
ETHICS CASE STUDY
Case Study 4.0: Low Bid on Feasibility Study
Statement of the Case: Engineer A was one of several consultants asked to submit proposals
for a feasibility study for a deep-water bulk-loading facility on the client’s site. To increase the
chances of getting the assignment, Engineer A submitted a proposal with a very low fee, which
was about half the realistic fee for the work. The reasoning behind the low fee was that the
consultant who got the feasibility study would be better placed to win the subsequent—and far
more lucrative—design competition (providing, of course, that the client decided to go ahead
with the proposed facility).
ETHICS CASE STUDY
Outcome: Engineer A won the contract for the feasibility study and found that the study required
far more time and expense than originally envisioned. The contract payments covered only
about 40 percent of the actual costs. However, the most depressing part was that Engineer A’s
study revealed that:
soil conditions would require very deep piles to support the massive quay-side equipment;
railway links and highway connections were far from the site;
the harbour did not have enough depth for bulk carriers without dredging; and
prevailing winds and wave action would cause constant problems for ships waiting to moor.
In other words, it really was not economically feasible to construct the bulk-loading facility on
the site, and Engineer A’s final report explained this fact. Engineer A had spent several months
on a project that had cost money to complete.
Assignment
Case Study 5.0: Inconsiderate Engineer
Statement of the Case: Engineer A was a consultant in a specialty of process control. He had
a small consulting firm, employing one computer technician and a shared secretary. The
specialty was well paid, and Engineer A had no local competitors. A large utility company hired
Engineer A to design a key part of a major gas distribution facility. Engineer B, an employee of
the gas utility, was resident engineer for the project, responsible for the site installation. The
project involved several specialties, but since the system was complex, changes frequently
affected everyone, so close communication and co-operation were essential.

During the project, the utility company decided to revise the specifications, and many field
changes had to be made to Engineer A’s design in order to accommodate the changes.
Engineer A’s time was paid as an “extra.” Nevertheless, Engineer B could rarely communicate
with Engineer A, and it was almost impossible to get a quick response. Although Engineer B
was skilled in process control, Engineer B could not, of course, change Engineer A’s design
without contacting him and receiving approval. Eventually, Engineer B prepared a
communications log of key calls and meetings with Engineer A, which read as follows:
Assignment
The first time B needed to contact A, he was unsuccessful. Engineer A was absent on
vacation, but had not left his staff with a phone number.
(2) The next contact was successful, and A replied with a fax containing details of the needed
change. However, the change later proved to be in error. Engineer A sent a second fax with
correct data, the following day.
(3) The next contact was successful.
(4) & (5) The next contact required an early afternoon meeting at A’s office. Engineer A
arrived 45 minutes late, provided no explanation, but clearly had consumed alcohol. Engineer
B made an appointment for the next day and this meeting took place in a satisfactory manner.
(6) & (7) The next two contacts were successful.
Assignment
(8) & (9) The next contact, by telephone, was satisfactory, and Engineer A promised to fax a
drawing to B that day. The fax had not arrived by 4 pm, so B phoned A, but was told by the
secretary that A had already left, and neither the secretary nor the technician were aware of
the promised drawing. Engineer B phoned A the next day and A apologized profusely, saying
the drawing was ready, but he had simply forgotten to fax it. Engineer A sent the drawing by
fax, several hours later.
When the facility was completed, a dedication ceremony was held, attended by workers,
politicians, and local residents. Engineer B invited A to attend, to sit on the platform and to be
introduced to the audience, but he was not required to speak. Engineer A agreed to be there,
but did not show up. When contacted later, A said he had an urgent meeting with another client
and forgot to phone to explain the change of plan.
Assignment
• Shortly after the completion of the project, Engineer A bid on a similar design contract, but
did
• not receive it. When he contacted Engineer B to discuss the loss of the contract, he was
informed
• that his lack of attention to the previous contract swayed the decision against him.

Question:
Was Engineer A negligent in his communication with Engineer B? Was it appropriate for
Engineer B to consider the poor communication as a factor in awarding the subsequent contract?

What clauses of the Code of Ethics have been violated by Engineer A’s actions?