McCarthy, S F (2012) Developing an Australian code of construction ethics. Construction Economics and Building, 12(2), pp. 87-100. ISSN 2204-9029
Abstract
This article looks at the increasing need to consider the role of ethics in construction. The industry, historically, has been challenged by allegations of a serious shortfall in ethical standards. Only limited attempts to date in Australia have been made to address that concern. Any ethical analysis should consider the definition of ethics and its historical development. This paper considers major historical developments in ethical thinking as well as contemporary thinking on ethics for professional sub-sets. A code could be developed specific to construction. Current methods of addressing ethics in construction and in other industries are also reviewed. This paper argues that developing a code of ethics, supported by other measures is the way forward. The author's aim is to promote further discussion and promote the drafting of a code. This paper includes a summary of other ethical codes that may provide a starting point. The time for reform is upon us, and there is an urgent need for an independent body to take the lead, for fear of floundering and having only found 'another debating topic' (Uff 2006).
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction law; ethics |
| Index terms: | historical development, drafting, Australia, construction law, ethics |
| Subjects: | technical documentation, architectural and construction history, construction law, ethical practice, Geography |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Geographical Context, Design Practice, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here