If we go by the number of cases considered by the Board of Ethical Review (BER) of the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) between 1958 and 1993, conflict of interest is the largest category of ethical problems facing engineers, exceeding the second-place topic, advertising, by nearly 25% (43 cases to 33). But the predominance of conflict of interest is actually greater than these numbers suggest. Since the Supreme Court decision in Bates v. Arizona State Bar (1977), the BER has taken only a few cases concerned with advertising, while the conflict-of-interest cases have become even more common. Of course, number of cases does not necessarily correspond to total number of inquiries made to the NSPE, much less to the rate at which problems are actually experienced in the field; but the number of cases considered certainly does testify to the variety of difficult cases within a category.

Given the BER experience, it is surprising that most introduction-to-the-engineering-profession textbooks ignore the topic of conflict of interest almost totally. Happily, the three most recent texts in engineering ethics, Ethical Issues in Engineering by Johnson (Prentice-Hall, 1991), Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases by Harris, Pritchard, and Rabins (Wadsworth, 1995) and Ethics in Engineering by Martin & Schinzinger (3rd edition, McGraw-Hill, 1996) do cover the topic and include some discussion of cases. Probably the earliest extended discussion of conflict of interest in engineering was the CSEP module with that title, written by Wells, Jones, and Davis, and published by Kendall/Hunt in 1986. Though its focus is the ASME v. Hydrolevel case, it also discusses several BER cases.

Engineering Codes
The codes of ethics of every major engineering society say something about conflict of interest but vary a good deal in what they say. The 1984 Model Guide of the American Association of Engineering Societies requires disclosure of-rather than avoidance of-a conflict: "engineers [should] disclose to affected parties known or potential conflicts of interest or other circumstances which might influence-or appear to influence judgment -- or impair the quality of their performance." On the other hand, the most recent (1991) version of the Code of Ethics of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers includes both avoidance and disclosure in its equally brief statement: "[members agree] to avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest whenever possible, and to disclose them to affected parties when they do exist."

The emphasis on avoidance or disclosure may even vary through the history of an individual society's code. In the versions of the NSPE Code of Ethics the BER consulted from the mid-50s through 1980, one of the fifteen sections of the code dealt exclusively with conflict of interest, counseling avoidance if possible and full disclosure if avoidance is not possible. (That code also briefly spelled out what counted as an "interest" as well as detailing special warnings for engineers in private practice who also had some position of authority in governmental bodies.) After 1980, the NSPE code, now divided into a short "Rules of Practice" section listing "Fundamental Canons", and a much longer section of "Professional Obligations," says nothing about avoidance; disclosure is now subsumed under a canon requiring engineers to "act in professional matters for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees" (as well as the previously-mentioned paragraphs on governmental involvement). In case 85-6 (that is, case 6 in 1985), the BER even went so far as to say that the decision in an earlier case (69-13) might have gone another way if the Board had been working under the current code-with no mention of avoidance-rather than the code in effect in 1969.

Corporate Codes
Not only does the code of ethics of every major engineering society include provisions regarding conflicts of interest, but so do most codes of conduct issued by companies employing engineers. Here, too, there is variety. I will give just a few examples.

The 1994 employee manual of Hoechst Celanese, Business Conduct Policy, lists conflict of interest as the first of several sections dealing with problem areas. (Among other problem areas are inside information, political contributions, and U.S. law restricting international trade.) After defining conflict of interest as a situation arising "when an employee's loyalty to the Company is prejudiced by actual or potential personal benefit from another source", the three-page discussion gives several examples and further specifies what is and what is not a "significant financial interest". Hoechst issues a companion Questions & Answers booklet that replies to sixteen questions concerning common conflict-of-interest situations.

A manual for Honda of America Manufacturing (HAM), Legal Compliance and Business Ethics Policy, is much briefer. It begins: "A conflict of interest occurs whenever an associate [that is, an employee] allows the possibility of direct or indirect personal gain to influence his or her judgment in the conduct of HAM's business". The manual then lists, in less than a page, five situations creating a potential conflict of interest.

Phillips Petroleum (Our Responsibility: A Code of Business Conduct and Ethics) defines "conflict of interest" more broadly than Honda does, that is, as "any situation that could cast doubt on your ability to act in an objective manner". That definition is followed by four pages illustrating such situations under four headings: (a) Competitive Relationships; (b) Relatives and Customers, Contractors, and Suppliers; (c) Misuse of Company Assets; and (d) Entertainment, Gifts, and Favors.

Finally, the current 3M Company Guidelines devote four pages to the topic, beginning with the statement: "It is 3M worldwide policy that, without prior management approval, 3M employees should not engage in activities that conflict with or are inconsistent with 3M activities or business interests or that could cause a reasonable person to believe that their judgment, loyalty to 3M or objectivity in the conduct of their 3M business activities and assignments might be adversely influenced."

Despite the differences, the companies all seem to regard conflict of interest as a threat to the ability of employees to exercise their best judgment on behalf of the company. They all see financial, family, or private business interests as sources of threats. Disclosure of the situation to appropriate company officials is recommended as the minimum response, with prior avoidance generally considered preferable when possible.

Typical Conflicts
Typical conflicts of interest that arise in engineering include: (a) having a financial interest such as a significant amount of stock in a supplier that could benefit from one's professional decisions; (b) having family members or business associates who could benefit from favoritism in one's professional decisions; (c) having a position of authority on a public or governmental body that might allow one selectively to benefit business associates, one's employer, family members, or one's own financial interests; and (d) working for a competitor or for competing clients at the same time. One common version of situation (a) involves a gift to an engineer from a vendor (either a personal gift or 'free' engineering assistance such as software). Companies often limit the dollar amount of permissible gifts that may be received and, less frequently, may specify the amount of stock an employee may hold in a supplier or competitor.

Some companies, mistakenly in my opinion, also categorize the following as conflict of interest situations: use of company information for private gain, unauthorized use of company equipment for private purposes, noncompetitive moonlighting, using the company affiliation to promote one's own business, supporting a public cause the company regards as hostile, or purchasing goods or services from a competitor. While some or all of these practices may be unprofessional or even immoral, they do not seem to me to be cases of professional trust being threatened by an objective interest in the sense of a financial or family relationship. They seem, in contrast, to involve only a subjective (or psychological) interest that may or may not arise out of the objective situation. There is, however, well-founded disagreement on this point, with those including subjective interests more likely to stress the threat to loyalty or independent judgment as the key condemnatory factor.

Options
Measures usually recommended for dealing with a conflict of interest, or even an appearance of a conflict, are (a) avoidance if possible (for example, refusing gifts from vendors), (b) divestment (for example, selling one's stock in a supplier), (c) resignation (for example, leaving a public board that often considers contracts involving your company), (d) nonparticipation (for example, removing oneself from the evaluation of potential subcontractors if a relative is one of the candidates), and (e) disclosure of the facts of one's situation to some or all parties concerned (for example, a university might require a professor to report financial interests related to research). The choice of the most appropriate measure is usually made on the basis of what is necessary to preserve trust on the part of the client, employer, or public and the parties' confidence in the objectivity of an engineer's professional judgment.