Complimentary Seminar Registration - Case No. 87-5
Facts:
The ABC Pipe Company is interested in becoming known within
the engineering community and, in particular, to those
engineers involved in the specification of pipe in
construction. ABC would like to educate engineers about the
various products available in the marketplace: the advantages
and disadvantages of using one type of pipe over another. ABC
sends an invitation to Engineer A, as well as other engineers
in a particular geographic area, announcing a one-day
complimentary educational seminar to educate engineers on
current technological advances in the selection and use of pipe
in construction. ABC will host all refreshments, buffet
luncheon during the seminar, and a cocktail reception
immediately following. Engineer A agrees to attend.
Question:
Was it ethical for Engineer A to attend the one-day
complimentary educational seminar hosted by the ABC Pipe
Company?
References:
Code of Ethics- Section II.4.c.:"Engineers shall not
solicit or accept financial or other valuable consideration,
directly or indirectly, from contractors, their agents, or
other parties in connection with work for employers or clients
for which they are responsible."
Section III.5.b.:"Engineers shall not accept
commissions or allowances, directly or indirectly, from
contractors or other parties dealing with clients or employers
of the Engineer in connection with work for which the Engineer
is responsible."
Section III.11.a.:"Engineers shall encourage
engineering employees' efforts to improve their
education."
Discussion:
Ethical concerns relating to the issue of gifts and other
consideration provided by suppliers to engineers are addressed
in several sections of the NSPE Code. Obviously, instances
where gifts or other property of monetary value are exchanged
between an engineer and a potential client are extremely
sensitive and do require careful scrutiny to determine if such
exchanges are proper. In the past, this Board has examined the
question from two perspectives: (1) where an engineer provides
a client with a gift or valuable consideration under
circumstances that could create the appearance of seeking to
influence the client's judgment, and (2) where a supplier
provides the engineer with a gift or valuable consideration
under circumstances that could create an appearance that the
supplier was seeking to influence the engineer's judgment. The
instant case relates to the latter situation.
In Case 60-9 the Board examined a situation involving
certain engineering employees of an industrial firm who were in
a position to recommend for or against the purchase of products
used by the company. They regularly received cash gifts ranging
from $25 to $100 from product salesmen. In ruling that
accepting those gifts was not ethical, the Board noted that an
occasional free luncheon or dinner, and a Christmas or birthday
present when there is a personal relationship, are acceptable
practice. On the other hand, cash payments to those in a
position to influence decisions favorable or unfavorable to the
giver are not in good taste and do immediately raise the
suspicion of an ulterior motive.
More recently, in Case 81-4, this Board dealt with three
engineers who were principals or employees of a consulting
engineering firm that did an extensive amount of design work
for private developers. The engineers were involved in
recommending to the developers a list of contractors and
suppliers to be considered for selection on a bidding list for
construction of some projects. Usually, those the engineers
recommended obtained most of the contracts from the developers.
Over a period of years, the officers of the contractors or
suppliers developed a close business and personal relationship
with the engineers. From time to time, at holidays or on the
engineers' birthdays, the contractors and suppliers would give
them personal gifts of substantial value, such as house
furnishings, recreational equipment, or gardening equipment. In
finding that it was unethical for the engineers to accept those
gifts, we stated that engineers should "lean over backward" to
avoid acceptance of gifts from those with whom they, o r their
firm, do business.
At that time, the Board again noted that there may be
circumstances when a gift is permissible, as stated in Case
60-9, and does not compromise the engineer's independent
professional judgment.
The Code unequivocally states that engineers must not accept
gifts or other valuable consideration from a supplier in
exchange for specifying its products. (See Sections II.4.c.;
III.5.b.) However, in this case we are dealing with a material
supplier who is introducing information about pipe products to
engineers in the community and has chosen the form of an
educational seminar as its vehicle. While ABC Pipe Company will
seek to present its particular products in a favorable light
and point out their many advantages over others', a
complimentary invitation to such a seminar would not reach the
level that would raise an ethical concern. The earlier
decisions and the pertinent provisions of the Code relate more
to the circumstances in which valuable gifts are received and
at least create the appearance of a "quid pro quo" or an
exchange of valuable consideration for specifying the
equipment. Under the facts of this case, Engineer A is
accepting an opportunity to become educated on a particular
topic consistent t with Section III.11.a. of the Code. He would
be attending the seminar with many of his colleagues, and there
is no suggestion in the facts that anyone at ABC Pipe Company
would personally seek to persuade Engineer A to specify its
products.
We view the buffet luncheon and cocktail reception
immediately following the seminar as falling within the the
minimal provisions noted earlier in Cases 60-9 and 81-4, and
thus it would not be improper for Engineer A to participate in
those activities. We note, however, that had Engineer A agreed
to accept items of substantial value (e.g., travel expenses,
multi-day program, resort location, etc.) our conclusion would
have been quite different.
Conclusion:*
It was ethical for Engineer A to attend the one-day
complimentary educational seminar hosted by the ABC Pipe
Company.
Board of Ethical Review:
- Eugene N. Bechamps, P.E.
- RobertJ. Haefeli, P.E.
- Ernest C. James, P.E.
- Robert W. Jarvis, P.E.
- J. Kent Roberts, P.E.
- Everett S. Thompson, P.E.
- Herbert G. Koogle, P.E.-L.S., chairman
*Note: This opinion is based on data submitted to the
Board of Ethical Review and does not necessarily represent all
of the pertinent facts when applied to a specific case. This
opinion is for educational purposes only and should not be
construed as expressing any opinion on the ethics of specific
individuals. This opinion may be reprinted without further
permission, provided that this statement is included before or
after the text of the case.
1996 NSPE Code of Ethics
This is the version of the code archived in the OEC. An earlier
version may have been used in this case.