Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

FIDIC Code of Ethics

The International Federation of Consulting Engineers recognises that the work of the consulting engineering industry is critical to the achievement of sustainable development of society and the environment. To be fully effective not only must engineers constantly improve their knowledge and skills, but also society must respect the integrity and trust the judgement of members of the profession and remunerate them fairly. All member associations of FIDIC subscribe to and believe that the following principles are fundamental to the behaviour of their members if society is to have that necessary confidence in its advisors.

Responsibility to society and the consulting industry


The consulting engineer shall: - Accept the responsibility of the consulting industry to society. - Seek solutions that are compatible with the principles of sustainable development. - At all times uphold the dignity, standing and reputation of the consulting industry.

Competence
The consulting engineer shall: - Maintain knowledge and skills at levels consistent with development in technology, legislation and management, and apply due skill, care and diligence in the services rendered to the client. - Perform services only when competent to perform them.

Integrity
The consulting engineer shall: - Act at all times in the legitimate interest of the client and provide all services with integrity and faithfulness.

Impartiality
The consulting engineer shall:

- Be impartial in the provision of professional advice, judgement or decision. - Inform the client of any potential conflict of interest that might arise in the performance of services to the client. - Not accept remuneration which prejudices independent judgement.

Fairness to others
The consulting engineer shall: - Promote the concept of Quality-Based Selection (QBS). - Neither carelessly nor intentionally do anything to injure the reputation or business of others. - Neither directly nor indirectly attempt to take the place of another consulting engineer, already appointed for a specific work. - Not take over the work of another consulting engineer before notifying the consulting engineer in question, and without being advised in writing by the client of the termination of the prior appointment for that work. - In the event of being asked to review the work of another, behave in accordance with appropriate conduct and courtesy.

Corruption
The consulting engineer shall: - Neither offer nor accept remuneration of any kind which in perception or in effect either a) seeks to influence the process of selection or compensation of consulting engineers and/or their clients or b) seeks to affect the consulting engineers impartial judgement. - Co-operate fully with any legitimately constituted investigative body which makes inquiry into the administration of any contract for services or construction. - See more at: http://fidic.org/node/743#sthash.7c2EkcEb.dpuf

Site safety
Issues Accidents at workplaces, and the trauma which results from them, have become a major concern. The concern arises from the personal difficulties which accident victims

face, the amount of resources needed to assist accident victims to deal with personal difficulties (sometimes for the remainder of a lifetime), and the loss of output which inevitably flows from accidents. The concern is real and must be addressed. Whilst it is necessary to deal with this problem, recent attempts in some countries have been, unfortunately, mainly politically driven, in an ill considered manner, attempting to coerce improvement. The circumstances surrounding accidents have been put into a criminal context, so that employers and their employees can be found guilty of the crime of not providing a safe workplace. This responsibility can draw engineers, including consulting engineers, into great difficulties. There are two critical matters which should be central to a system for creating and maintaining site safety. First, the system must recognise that there is no process that can be termed safe, in an absolute sense. All that can be aimed for is a process that is as safe as the resources devoted to it will allow. Second, individuals can only be held accountable for circumstances they can control. In the complex environment in which engineers work, where many parties are drawn into co-operative efforts to achieve a desired outcome, matching responsibility with the control needed for its acceptance has proved extremely difficult. Just as there is no such thing as a clear boundary between safe and unsafe, there probably can be no clear matching of control and responsibility. Given these difficulties, systems designed to achieve optimum site safety are more likely to succeed if they set out to induce change for the better rather than to coerce such change. Currently the impatience of legislators looking for improvement in safety and the burden of trauma management, has led to an emphasis on coercion. This trend will not serve engineers well, and will actively limit their ability to serve their communities. However, if private initiative is timely, the objective of safety can be realised with more flexibility than under coercion. Rationale The vast resources devoted to the management of accident-induced events could be directed into better practice, developed in a non-adversarial environment, to the benefit of communities served by engineers. Policy Whilst it is recognised that there are already in existence national laws in various jurisdictions which would cut across the statements made above, nevertheless, FIDIC recommends that its Member Associations work to establish logical systems for the establishment and maintenance of appropriately safe working practices at workplaces.

- See more at: http://fidic.org/node/766#sthash.4ettOmsf.dpuf