Eliminating

Corruption in
Our Engineering/
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 136.158.124.111 on 03/19/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Construction
Industry
MAARTEN DE JONG; WILLIAM P. HENRY, P.E.;
AND NEILL STANSBURY

ABSTRACT: The public works/engineering/construction sector has been identified as the

most corrupt sector in the world. For a long time the industry had no concerted plan to
attack the problem, but in the late 1990s several events happened that have given rise to
the industry’s most far-reaching effort to address corruption. Efforts are underway by
world governments, engineering/construction organizations, and individuals to combat
corruption and conduct business in an honest, transparent, and fair manner. In this ar-
ticle we discuss the magnitude of corruption in the industry, describe the most common
types of corruption, identify actions being taken to eliminate corruption in the industry,
and explain what individuals can do to address the problem.

W
e are all proud of our
engineering/construction in-
dustry’s role in shaping our
world. Our water and waste-
water systems have done
more to improve public
health than all the hospitals in the world. Our roads and
bridges, railroads, transit systems, airports, and ports move
people to and from their houses and jobs, and move goods
from producers to consumers. The buildings we produce pro-
vide houses, stores, manufacturing, energy 共refineries, power
plants兲, education 共schools兲, and health care 共hospitals兲. Life as
we know it would not exist without engineers, constructors,
material suppliers, equipment suppliers, lenders, and owners
who plan, design, construct, operate and maintain our built
environment.
Yet, despite all of the good that the engineering/
construction industry has done, our industry still receives
notoriety for corruption. The public works/engineering/
construction sector has been identified as the most corrupt in
the world 共Transparency International 2008兲. For a long time,
the industry had no concerted plan to attack the problem.
Some governments had enacted legislation to outlaw overseas
bribery—the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in the United
Statesisanexample—butenforcementhadbeenspotty.How-
ever,inthelate-1990sseveraleventshappenedthatgaveriseto

Leadership and Management in Engineering 䊏

105 JULY 2009

Leadership Manage. Eng., 2009, 9(3): 105-111

 theindustry’smostfar-reachingefforttoaddresscorruption.
Inthispaper,we:
• Identify the magnitude of the problem;
• Define and give examples of the most common types of
corruption;
• Identify some major players in the engineering/
construction industry who are taking action to eliminate
corruption in the industry;
• Explain what individuals can do to address the problem;
and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 136.158.124.111 on 03/19/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
• Explore available data regarding how successful the efforts
are.
It is our intent for everyone in the engineering/construction
industrytounderstandthat:
• Corruption exists;
• Corruption is a serious problem;
• Illegal and unethical activities have been carried out by
the full spectrum of parties to construction work;
• The forms of corruption are varied;
• Corrupt acts occur when two or more people make bad
decisions; and
• The cost of corruption goes beyond money—corruption
kills.
MAGNITUDE OF THE PROBLEM
Indeed, anticorruption is a movement whose time has come.
According to an estimate by the World Bank Institute, the
cost of corruption represents five percent of the world
economy—or more than $1.5 trillion a year 共World Bank
Institute 2004兲. With all the situations needing attention in
our world, it is vital that we understand the magnitude of
corruption in the engineering/construction industry to assess
the priority we should place on eliminating it. To do that,
we need to understand the size of our industry and the nega-
tive impact of corruption. How big is our industry world-
wide? The size is measured in trillions of dollars and is about
one-third the size of the U.S. economy. It is larger than Ja-
pan’s economy and nearly twice the size of Germany’s
economy. The industry is truly big business.
No one knows the true cost of corruption. However, an
estimate for the industry’s loss to corruption is 10 percent or
$500 billion per year. To put that number in perspective,
think back to when the U.S. Congress passed the new Trans-
portation Bill, SAFETEA-LU. After more than a year of de-
bate, the bill covered $286 billion over six years, or $47.7
billion per year. So, globally, the engineering/construction
industry losses to corruption could be over eight times the
amount of money the U.S. government spends on transpor-
tation annually. These numbers show that corruption is of a
magnitude that simply cannot be ignored.
JULY 2009 䊏
106
Leadership Manage. Eng., 2009, 9(3): 105-111
Numbers tell part of the story, but not all of it. Emerging
trends are also major considerations. Two forecasts have
strong implications for the potential for corruption in the
future. The first forecast is that by 2015—six years from
now—80 percent of the money spent on infrastructure in
the world will be spent in developing countries. According
to the United Nations, two-thirds of the major cities in the
world will be in those developing countries by 2020.
What does this level of activity in the developing coun-
tries tell us? The first thing that comes to mind is that those
countries do not have the engineering planning and design,
construction and materials, and equipment supply firms
needed to produce that volume of work. So, we can expect to
see global consortia being formed for projects. New firms
will work in these countries, and new working relationships
will be forged. Each area will have its own way of doing
business, and there will be lots to learn about how things are
done. These kinds of uncertainties offer great potential for
corrupt actions.
The second thing that comes to mind is that there is
often a high level of corruption in developing countries in all
business activities—not just the engineering/construction in-
dustry. Transparency International, the world’s largest non-
governmental anticorruption organization, with chapters in
90 countries, regularly publishes a Corruption Perceptions
Index which rates the perceived level of corruption in coun-
tries. The developing countries consistently rate lowest,
which indicates a high likelihood of corruption.
When you look at the magnitude of the engineering/
construction industry, the funds potentially lost to corrup-
tion, and the forecasts of where major activities will be, you
get a picture that can be interpreted as a possible growth
scenario for corruption in the industry. Corruption is cur-
rently a major problem with the potential to get much
worse.
CORRUPTION KILLS
Although the above figures illustrate the enormity of the
financial loss caused by corruption, they do not illustrate the
human cost. By diverting resources from inoculation pro-
grams, medicines, hospitals, and water and food supply
projects, people die from preventable disease and hunger. In
addition, corruption results in projects that are built to un-
safe designs or that use dangerous construction methods,
equipment, or materials. Quite simply, corruption kills. Cor-
ruption kills not only because money intended for the poor
ends up in the pockets of corrupt officials, but because the
bribes set in motion a chain of harmful events—the selection
of unqualified contractors; the gross inflation of costs; the
failure to complete work; the delivery of substandard goods,
or too often, of nothing at all—that hamper development
and add to unproductive debt. In fact, corruption and its
Leadership and Management in Engineering
 progeny of fraud, waste, abuse, and neglect are now widely
acknowledged to be the single greatest impediment to the
development of impoverished countries.
JUST WHAT IS CORRUPTION?
Corruption, according to Webster’s Dictionary, is the impair-
ment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle. It can also be an
inducement to do wrong by improper or unlawful means. In
the engineering/construction industry, corruption can take
several forms depending on who is involved:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 136.158.124.111 on 03/19/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
• Government official,
• Owner,
• Funder,
• Engineer,
• Constructor,
• Material supplier,
• Equipment supplier,
• Lender, and
• Regulatory/permitting agency.
One point to always keep in mind: corruption takes two
individuals agreeing to act together in a corrupt manner.
Corruption occurs when individuals make bad decisions.
The engineering/construction industry has many forms of
corruption. The main ones are kickbacks and bribery, front
companies, bid rigging and collusion, fraud, and conflicts of
interest. Government and project officials can divert funds
from projects by demanding kickbacks from contractors in
exchange for the award of a contract, the payment of in-
voices, or the approval of contract amendments or other ser-
vices. This is the most common way to steal because it is
easy to accomplish, hard to detect, and very lucrative. For
example, a 10 percent kickback demand on a $50 million
road rehabilitation project would yield $5 million 共untaxed兲.
And this is from just one project; many corrupt officials
manage many projects.
It is not uncommon for corrupt project staff or owners to
secretly set up front companies that do business with the
project, usually at inflated prices for poor quality services. At
times, project staff convert project funds and assets directly to
their own use. These transactions are relatively small com-
pared to those described above, and include such unimagi-
native but remunerative offenses as:
• Embezzling funds directly from project accounts;
• Converting vehicles and computers to personal use;
• using project funds to pay for vacations, buy cars, or build
houses; or
• Selling goods intended for the project, such as medicines,
food, or construction materials, for personal profit 共perhaps
through their front companies兲, and so on.
Corrupt contractors can defraud projects 共to recover the
costs of their bribes and inflate profits兲 by overcharging for
Leadership and Management in Engineering 䊏
107
Leadership Manage. Eng., 2009, 9(3): 105-111
goods and services, charging for goods and services that are
never delivered, substituting less expensive and lower quality
materials for those called for in the contract, or billing lesser-
paid employees at higher rates on consulting contracts.
Kickbacks and bribery are the two sides of the same cor-
ruptive coin. Kickbacks 共known also as extortion兲 are asked
for by someone in a position of power from someone seeking
a favorable decision by the person in power. Bribes are offered
to a decision maker by someone seeking a favorable decision.
Kickbacks can be sought by owners from engineers or con-
structors, by engineers from potential subcontractors, by con-
structors from potential subcontractors or material suppliers,
by material or equipment suppliers from potential subcon-
tractors, or by regulatory/permitting agencies from engi-
neers, constructors, materials or equipment suppliers. Bribes
occur in the opposite direction. Kickbacks and bribes result
in funds earmarked for projects going into the pockets of
individuals. When kickbacks and bribes replace quality in
selection processes, project quality and reliability are lowered.
The end result is that the people who need and are relying
on the project will be the ones who suffer.
The flow of kickback or bribe funds can be quite com-
plex. Cash payments leave no trail for auditors. International
bank transfers can be difficult to trace. In some countries, it is
impossible to establish ownership of bank accounts or assets.
Forged documents may be used to create seemingly legiti-
mate paper trails. In some cases, middlemen are used to
facilitate the transfer of funds. It is often difficult to decipher
legitimate business relationships with middlemen from ille-
gitimate ones. One overarching attribute of kickback/bribery
schemes is a strong conspiracy of silence among the partici-
pants. For all these reasons, kickback/bribery schemes have
flourished for centuries, and continue to do so today.
Front companies are often newly established entities.
They do not show a history of successful work. Often, they
will offer diverse, disconnected services. The above could also
describe a legitimate joint venture company formed for a
project. One big difference between the front company and
the legitimate joint venture lies in the ownership records.
The front company has few records of ownership; the joint
venture is fully transparent on ownership. The reason for few
ownership records is that the owners do not want to be
known. They may be high-ranking government officials
who would receive profits from the front company. Owners
could also be officials in the project implementation unit
who will have a voice in awarding work to the front com-
pany. A front company often acts as the “local agent” for a
project, not as one of the key producers of the work.
Bid rigging and collusion are other corrupt activities that
can take a variety of forms. Owners’ personnel can participate
by setting very short bid periods so only firms they have
notified illegally about the upcoming bid have sufficient
time to prepare a sound bid. Owners’ personnel can also
JULY 2009
 exclude qualified firms from bid lists and only allow “fa-
vored” firms to compete.
Contractors may engage in collusion by making agree-
ments on who will get each of a series of projects. In this way,
the “designated winner” can submit an artificially high bid,
while the others submit even higher ones. There can also be
collusion between owner’s and contractor’s personnel. For ex-
ample, a favored contractor may be asked to submit an arti-
ficially low bid to assure that it will get the project. During
the course of the work, the owner’s staff will allow contract
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 136.158.124.111 on 03/19/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
modifications and change orders that raise the contractor’s
revenue, lower the contractor’s cost, or both. Bid rigging and
collusion may also be part of larger corruption schemes.
Finally, all types of conflicts of interest are forms of cor-
ruption. Conflicts of interest can range from per se
conflicts—where a person has a direct personal stake in the
outcome—to more camouflaged ones where friends and/or
family members receive the unwarranted rewards. The way
to minimize conflicts of interest is to require disclosures of all
real and potential conflicts by all parties—owners, potential
contractors 共engineers or constructors, suppliers, and
lenders兲—to a project prior to the start of procurement ac-
tivities.
During the progress of a project, or a series of projects,
there are often red flags that may indicate corruption:
• Recurring use of one company 共prime contractor, subcon-
tractor, supplier, agent兲;
• A close, personal 共nonbusiness兲 relationship among
project parties;
• The terms of reference in contracts are vague or incom-
plete;
• Firms use false qualifications or show resumes of qualified
people but use other less-qualified staff on the project;
• Different firms use the same address or phone number;
• A firm does business using a variety of names; and
• One firm does many diverse tasks.
Corruption exists. We can take the tack that that’s the
way the world is or we can act now and act together to
eliminate corruption in our industry. The choice is ours!
CURRENT ACTIONS
Many members of the engineering/construction industry
have decided to act. A big step is to improve the openness
and transparency of the decision-making processes from pro-
curement to performance of the work by all parties involved
in a project 共owner; engineers, both lead and subcontractors;
constructors, both prime and subcontractors; material and
equipment suppliers; funders; lenders; and regulators兲.
The key members of the engineering/construction indus-
try who have current action programs are governments 共who
may be owners or regulators兲, engineers, constructors, lend-
ers, evaluators, and professional organizations.
JULY 2009 䊏
108
Leadership Manage. Eng., 2009, 9(3): 105-111
Governments
Governments around the world are tightening their legisla-
tion against corruption. Examples include the United Na-
tions Convention against Corruption; the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development 共OECD兲 Conven-
tion on Combating Bribery; the Inter-American Convention
against Corruption; two Council of Europe Conventions on
Corruption; two European Union Conventions; the African
Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corrup-
tion; and the Asian Development Bank 共ADB兲/OECD Anti
Corruption Action Plan for Asia and the Pacific. The most
significant convention, due to both its scope and geographic
reach, is the United Nations Convention which has been
signed by 140 countries. It came into force in December
2005 and requires:
• The development, implementation, or maintenance of ef-
fective, coordinated anticorruption policies;
• The establishment of transparent, competitive, and objec-
tive procurement systems and public finance procedures;
• The criminalization of bribery, trading in influence, em-
bezzlement, abuse of power, illicit enrichment, money
laundering, and false accounting 共applicable to both pub-
lic and private sector兲;
• The establishment of independent and adequately re-
sourced entities to fight corruption; and
• International cooperation and extradition.
In order to comply with the obligations imposed by these
conventions, many countries had to change their antibribery
laws. In particular, all OECD countries were required by the
OECD Convention to ensure that their laws made it a crime,
prosecutable in the home country, for their companies and
nationals to pay a bribe overseas. All OECD countries have
now changed their law in this regard. Previously, an indi-
vidual who paid a bribe overseas may have been confident
that they would never be prosecuted. The country in which
the bribe was paid may have had an ineffective prosecution
system, and the individual’s home country may have had no
jurisdiction over an act that took place overseas. Now that
has changed. A person may be prosecuted both in the coun-
try in which the bribe is paid, and in their home country.
International antimoney-laundering regulations have
been tightened, and bank secrecy laws have been relaxed. As
a result, there is an increased likelihood that the payers and
recipients of corrupt payments will be identified. In addition,
convention obligations require countries to cooperate in the
identification and recovery of corruptly obtained assets.
Many governments are also aware that effective anticor-
ruption action needs more than merely signing a convention
or changing the law. In July 2005, the world’s eight largest
economies issued a G8 communiqué which committed the
G8 nations to “Reduce bribery by the private sector by rig-
Leadership and Management in Engineering
 orously enforcing laws against the bribery of foreign public
officials, including prosecuting those engaged in bribery;
strengthening antibribery requirements for those applying
for export credits and credit guarantees, and continuing our
support for peer review, in line with the OECD Convention;
encouraging companies to adopt antibribery compliance pro-
grams and report solicitations of bribery; and by committing
to cooperate with African governments to ensure the pros-
ecution of those engaged in bribery and bribe solicitation.”
Prosecution authorities in OECD countries are now con-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 136.158.124.111 on 03/19/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ducting a significant number of investigations under the
new laws into alleged corrupt behavior. Although this has
resulted in few prosecutions, the number is expected to in-
crease as a result of improved reporting and increased inter-
national cooperation.
Debarment is becoming a more widely used government
tool. It is a system under which companies or individuals
who are found guilty of corruption are prevented from par-
ticipating in future projects owned or funded by the debar-
ring organization. Many governments operate a debarment
system. For example, as a result of the European Union Pro-
curement Directives 2004, all European Union member
states were required, by January 31, 2006, to ensure that
their laws provided for mandatory exclusion of a company
from public sector and utility contracts if the company, or its
directors, or any other person who has powers of representa-
tion, decision, or control of the company, have been con-
victed of corruption, bribery, fraud, money laundering, car-
tels, and specified other offences.
In May 2006, an OECD antibribery working group,
which comprises the export credit agencies of all OECD
countries, issued its “Action Statement on Bribery and Offi-
cially Supported Export Credits.” This requires all OECD
export credit agencies to enhance their anticorruption ac-
tions. Among the actions are requirements that export credit
agencies:
• Encourage applicants for export credits to develop, apply,
and document appropriate antibribery management con-
trol systems;
• Require applicants to provide undertakings that neither
they, nor anyone acting on their behalf, has engaged, or
will engage in bribery;
• Verify whether applicants appear on a multilateral devel-
opment bank debarment list, or are being investigated, or
have been convicted of bribery;
• Require disclosure of agents and their commissions; and
• Obtain recourse from an applicant in the event of bribery.
Organizations
The consulting engineering community has also been active
in developing and implementing anticorruption programs.
The International Federation of Consulting Engineers
Leadership and Management in Engineering 䊏
109
Leadership Manage. Eng., 2009, 9(3): 105-111
共FIDIC兲 has developed “Guidelines for Business Integrity
Management in the Consulting Industry.” These guidelines
show how to develop an integrity management system based
on uniform, transparent, and accountable practices in a firm.
The constructors have also taken bold steps against cor-
ruption. The World Economic Forum 共WEF兲 Partnering
against Corruption Initiative 共PACI兲 was established by the
construction section of WEF, and has expanded to include
natural resources development firms. Over 130 major inter-
national companies from the construction and engineering,
oil and gas, and mining and mineral sectors, with combined
annual revenues in excess of US$500 billion, and from over
35 countries, have committed not to tolerate bribery, and to
implement effective anticorruption procedures.
The major international lenders have also been active in
developing and implementing anticorruption programs. In
February 2006, the African Development Bank, Asian De-
velopment Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, Euro-
pean Investment Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction
and Development, the International Monetary Fund, and the
World Bank agreed to standardize their definition of corrup-
tion, to improve the consistency of their investigative rules
and procedures, to strengthen information sharing, and to
assure that compliance and enforcement actions taken by one
institution are supported by all others. They also agreed to
work together to develop concrete proposals to assist coun-
tries in strengthening their capacity to combat corruption,
and to improve cooperation with civil society and other
stakeholders and institutions with the goal of enhancing
transparency and accountability.
In addition, all multilateral development banks operate
debarment systems. The best known is that of the World
Bank, which has a large corruption investigation depart-
ment, and which publishes a list of debarred individuals and
organizations on its Web site.
The World Bank has also developed its Voluntary Dis-
closure Program. This is a program that allows firms that
have been involved in corrupt activities to confidentially de-
scribe their activities in detail in exchange for lack of debar-
ment. The program is in its infancy, but holds promise as a
tool to combat corruption.
Our engineering/construction industry has drawn the at-
tention of organizations that evaluate how decisions are made
in countries. Transparency International 共TI兲 is the leading
evaluator of our industry and has developed the “Business
Principles for Countering Bribery” and its accompanying
guidelines, implementation plan, and verification module.
Transparency International also publishes its Corruption Per-
ceptions Index and Bribe Payers’ Index, and works with oth-
ers to improve the efforts of all against corruption. For ex-
ample, TI, the United Nations Global Compact 10th
Principle, the International Chamber of Commerce’s Com-
mission on Anticorruption, and the World Economic Fo-
JULY 2009
 rum’s Partnering against Corruption Initiative have agreed to
coordinate their efforts to disseminate good practice and
guidance materials and to support each others’ implementa-
tion and compliance tools.
The Global Infrastructure Anticorruption Centre 共GI-
ACC兲 was launched in May 2008. It publishes the GIACC
Resource Centre, which is a Web resource that provides free
access to information, advice and tools designed to help
stakeholders understand, prevent and identify corruption in
the infrastructure, construction and engineering sectors.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 136.158.124.111 on 03/19/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Since launch, the Resource Centre has been visited by orga-
nizations from over 125 countries. 共www.giaccentre.org兲.
GIACC also has published the “Project Anticorruption Sys-
tem” 共PACS兲, which is a modular system designed specifi-
cally for construction projects. These modules include anti-
corruption commitments, independent monitoring, due
diligence, transparency, and training.
Individuals
We have discussed what companies and institutions are do-
ing to address corruption in the engineering/construction in-
dustry. Recognizing that individuals making bad decisions is
the root cause of the problem, the engineering societies
around the world, whose members are individuals, not firms,
are also acting to fight corruption. Several organizations have
developed model codes of conduct and guidance to assist
individual engineers improve their understanding of ethical
practices and the damage and risks of corruption, and to
enhance their disciplinary procedures.
The United Kingdom Institution of Civil Engineers has
published a revised Code of Professional Conduct and ac-
companying Advice on Ethical Conduct, which deal ex-
pressly with the issue of corruption.
The American Society of Civil Engineers has worked as
the secretariat for more than 100 engineering societies glo-
bally to develop and distribute “Combating Corruption in
Engineering and Construction—An Engineer’s Charter.”
This document prohibits corruption by engineers, and the
signatory organizations pledge they will work with other
international organizations to eradicate corruption.
ASCE has also amended their Code of Ethics, specifically
Cannon 6 which states that: “Engineers shall act in such a
manner as to uphold and enhance the honor, integrity, and
dignity of the engineering profession and shall act with zero-
tolerance for bribery, fraud, and corruption.”
Canon 6 also calls for engineers to:
• Not knowingly engage in business or professional prac-
tices of a fraudulent, dishonest, or unethical nature;
• Be scrupulously honest in their control and spending of
monies, and promote effective use of resources through
open, honest, and impartial service with fidelity to the
public, employers, associates, and clients;
JULY 2009 䊏
110
Leadership Manage. Eng., 2009, 9(3): 105-111
• Act with zero-tolerance for bribery, fraud, and corruption
in all engineering or construction activities in which they
are engaged;
• Be especially vigilant in maintaining appropriate ethical
behavior where payments of gratuities are institutional-
ized practices;
• Strive for transparency in the procurement and execution
of projects, including disclosure of names, addresses, pur-
poses, and fees or commissions paid for all agents facilitat-
ing projects; and
• Encourage the use of certifications specifying zero-
tolerance for bribery, fraud, and corruption in all contracts.
This language is much more specific in addressing the
role of the individual engineer when confronted with bribery,
fraud, and corruption in our engineering/construction indus-
try.
It is now accepted that cooperative action is essential if
corruption is to be prevented. Tackling corruption is not a
competitive issue. Everyone 共apart from the corrupt兲 will
benefit if corruption is eradicated. A level playing field will
be achieved, and companies will be able to compete and to
perform free from the risks, unfairness, and uncertainties
which corruption imposes. Several cooperative initiatives
have been established.
The World Federation of Engineering Organizations
brings together national engineering organizations from
more than 90 nations and represents some 15,000,000 en-
gineers from around the world. It has established an interna-
tional Anticorruption Standing Committee, with members
from each continent, to agree on appropriate anticorruption
actions.
The United Kingdom Anticorruption Forum is an alli-
ance of business associations, professional institutions, and
organizations in the United Kingdom with interests in the
domestic and international infrastructure, construction, and
engineering sectors. It was founded in October 2004. Its
members include the Association for Consultancy and Engi-
neering, British Expertise, Chartered Institute of Building,
Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply, Engineers
Against Poverty, Institution of Civil Engineers, Institution of
Mechanical Engineers, Institution of Structural Engineers,
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, and Transparency
International 共U.K.兲. These associations represent over 1,000
companies and 350,000 industry professionals. The Forum
also includes numerous large, medium, and small companies
as active members. The purpose of the Forum is to promote
industry-led actions which can help eliminate corruption. In
September 2005, the Forum published its “Anticorruption
Action Statement,” which calls on all those with interests in
the infrastructure, construction, and engineering sectors to
take effective and coordinated action to reduce corruption, on
Leadership and Management in Engineering
 both a domestic and international basis, and on both the
supply and demand sides.
CURRENT STATUS
Each member of the engineering/construction industry can
take positive steps to reduce corruption. We must all recog-
nize that ignoring corruption is the same as condoning it. A
simple, five-part program will start positive action:
1. Educate all those working in the profession on the
true cost of corruption in their country;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 136.158.124.111 on 03/19/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
2. Shine a bright spotlight on corrupt activities wher-
ever you see them;
3. Make it socially unacceptable to be involved in cor-
ruption;
4. Encourage organizations to implement anticorruption
management measures in their organizations and on
their projects; and
5. Educate the next generation of engineers, construc-
tors, owners, government leaders, material and equip-
ment suppliers, and lenders on the true cost of
corruption.
Despite the positive and significant changes that are oc-
curring, there is still major corruption in many countries.
The main problem is that many politicians and government
officials 共in both developed and developing countries兲 are
themselves corrupt. They control the decision-making pro-
cess, and, frequently, the prosecution authorities and courts.
They grant themselves immunity against prosecution. They
can, therefore, enrich themselves with impunity. Many other
leaders who are not corrupt take insufficient action to pre-
vent corruption. It is difficult to achieve change at a working
level when leaders are corrupt, and little action is taken to
prosecute, or recover stolen assets. Junior officials, who are
frequently underpaid, supplement their income with minor
facilitation payments, and see little reason to change when
Leadership and Management in Engineering 䊏
111
Leadership Manage. Eng., 2009, 9(3): 105-111
their leaders are stealing the income which could have in-
creased their wages.
However, in the engineering/construction industry, real
change is taking place, and there is no going back. It is
essential that all in the industry continue to lead change, and
to put pressure on governments, banks, and other partici-
pants to play their part. The aim is twofold: 共1兲 to achieve a
level playing field where business can be undertaken in an
honest, transparent, and fair manner; and 共2兲 to ensure that,
in the engineering/construction industry, corruption does not
kill.
REFERENCES
Transparency International. 共2008兲. “Transparency Inter-
national bribe payers’ index, 2008.” 具http://www.trans
parency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/bpi/bpi_
2008典.
World Bank Institute. 共2004兲. 具http://web.worldbank.
org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/WBI/EXTWBIGOVANT
COR/0,,contentMDK:20787588~menuPK:1857785~
pagePK:64168445~piPK:64168309~theSitePK:17405
30,00.html典.
MaartendeJongisthedirectorofEthicsandBusiness
Integrity Services in The Netherlands. He can be
reached by e-mail at marten.dejong@ebi-services.nl.
William P. Henry is a retired water resources engineer in
Sequin, Wash. He is a past president of ASCE and past
chairoftheAmericanAssociationofEngineeringSociet-
ies. He is a member of the anticorruption standing com-
mittee of the World Federation of Engineering Organi-
zations and cochair of the Asian Civil Engineering
CoordinatingCouncilanticorruptioncommittee.Hecan
be reached by e-mail at whenrype@wavecable.com.
Neill Stansbury is the co-coordinator of the U.K. Anti-
corruption Forum. He can be reached by e-mail at
neill.stansbury@giaccentre.org. LME
JULY 2009