Ray, R S; Hornibrook, J; Skitmore, M and Zarkada-Fraser, A (1999) Ethics in tendering: A survey of Australian opinion and practice. Construction Management and Economics, 17(2), pp. 139-153. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
The main issues in the philosophical foundations of ethics and tendering ethics are outlined, and an introduction is provided to the Australian codes of tendering practice. A questionnaire survey is then described which sought to ascertain the extent to which ethical behaviour in tendering is supported and practiced in Australia. The results of the survey indicate that most companies support the use of codes of tendering; defend the right of withdrawal of tenders; disapprove of bid shopping, cover pricing and union involvement in the tendering process, and support the principals' right to know what is included in a tender as well as the self-regulation of the tendering codes. It is also shown that most companies have developed, and follow, idiosyncratic ethical guidelines that are independent of, and often contrary to, the nationally prescribed codes. The conclusions recommend a need for the development of a theoretical frame of reference that can be tested through a more detailed empirical approach to the development of future ethical prescriptions in the field.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | codes; ethics; restrictive practices; tendering |
| Index terms: | pricing, tendering process, Australia, ethics, prescription, foundations, restrictive practice, survey, self-regulation, questionnaire, ethical behaviour |
| Subjects: | ethical issues, economic analysis, ethical practice, legal systems, data collection methods, behavioral psychology, tendering, medical science and clinical practice, structural engineering, Geography |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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